Sunday, April 24, 2005

My sentiments exactly:

Let's say you join the Army.

You go through basic training and are sent to Iraq. One day, your unit comes under fire. Everybody shoots back except you. When your commanding officer demands to know why, you explain that as a Christian, you have moral objections to killing people.

I'd wager most of us would think you a couple of companies short of a full battalion. If you agree, then you're going to love — by which I mean, hate — what's happening with your local pharmacist.


People have an absolute right — indeed, an absolute duty — to oppose abortion if conscience so dictates. They have the right to pen letters to the editor, to support politicians who share their views, to demonstrate and agitate.

But no one has the right to refuse to perform some foreseeable aspect of their job. I mean, if pharmacies of the future began dispensing crack, OK I might sympathize with the pharmacist who refused on moral grounds. How was she to know that would become part of the job description when she signed on?

However, just as the soldier in the scenario should have known that shooting people might be part of his day's work, so should a candidate for a pharmacy job understand that she might have to hand out contraceptive pills and devices. She should either resolve to mind her own business or keep searching the want ads.

I mean, what's next? Can the clerk at Blockbuster refuse to rent R-rated movies because he objects to explicit language? Can the vegan who works at McDonald's refuse to take orders for Big Macs? Tobacco kills 440,000 Americans a year. If I work at 7-Eleven, can I refuse to sell Marlboros?

Of course not. So by what right do these "activist" pharmacists get to impose their morals on the rest of us? And by what logic do lawmakers legitimize their ability to do so?

There's no moral puzzler here, folks. In fact, the solution is real simple. You don't like what the job requires? Fine.

Get another job.

No comments: