There's an interesting article in today's Journal about a push in the state legislature for a conscience clause for pharmacists. The idea has gained notoriety after a case where a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for birth control, and refused to forward the prescription to another pharmacy:

On a Saturday in July 2002, Noesen was alone on duty at a Menomonie pharmacy when Phiede, a University of Wisconsin-Stout college student, came to have her prescription for oral contraceptives refilled. Noesen objected to the drugs on religious grounds and refused to transfer her prescription to another pharmacy.

Now, he's facing a possible reprimand and limitations on his license, which an administrative law judge has recommended be imposed by the state Pharmacy Examining Board in April. But it didn't have to get that far, said Matt Sande, legislative director for Pro-Life Wisconsin.
...
"There is some middle ground by which the pharmacist can be protected and the woman can legally access her prescription," Sande said.

That's right... there is no middle ground, and there ought not to be. People are trying to make this guy out as a principled man who is standing up for what he believes in. Sir, if you were a principled man and believed that strongly in that religious tenant, then you should not be a pharmacist. A principled man would quit his job if he didn't agree with what he had to do as part of that job. Instead you are attempting to force your views on someone else. That is not a principled stand. You're trying to have your cake and eat it to. I still want to be a pharmacist, but I don't want to have to do anything I don't agree with. This is akin to saying that conscientious objectors in a draft should still be sent to the front line (because hell, they still want the danger pay), but not court martialed if they decide not to shoot at the enemy.

Don't get me wrong... I understand the argument. One could argue that a pharmacist could advertise his unwillingness to fill certain prescriptions. It's a principled stand, and not forcing his views on others right? First of all, this guy didn't do that. He didn't advertise that fact to this woman until it was too late, and he refused to transfer the prescription (which was totally out of line). Plus, it wasn't his pharmacy. Maybe if he owned his own store and had a sign up, I would agree. Hell, some people may decided that this was the kind of person they wanted as their local pharmacist and he would gain business. The capitalist in me can be compelled to hear that argument. Then again, would people be so willing to have that clause if it meant they couldn't get their Viagra prescription filled?

Being principled often times means you must face the consequences for those principles. That is the price you pay. I say its time to find a new job.