Do Businesses Have the Right to Refuse Service Based on Moral/Religious Objections?

[rainintothesea]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, here, I'm genuinely curious about something. Flowers are one thing, perhaps, no one's going to bleed out if they don't get their flowers (at least I hope not, wow). But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

On the one hand, if someone has a huge moral objection to doing business with me, that's something I'd like to know so that I can take my business elsewhere. There's the whole, "If we don't have free speech, how else will we know who the assholes are?" sort of argument, there. But I think we might be treading in some dangerous territory, too, if we say it's okay to discriminate for whatever reason you like... what kind of discrimination is okay, then, and who sets those boundaries? And, hey, in turn, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with other people making those decisions for me... and I think that when one decides to run a business, one is agreeing that while it might be okay to refuse service to an individual who is being an unreasonable jerkface (that's how I have always read those signs, myself), it's understood that it's NOT okay to refuse service to POC or other generally-agreed-upon protected classes of characteristics that include whole swaths of society.

[Blade]

Originally Posted by rainintothesea

But do the folks who side with the business owner in this case also agree with the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription to stop the woman's uncontrolled uterine bleeding due to her moral objections (she would only fill the script if she knew it hadn't been the result of an abortion)? Where does one draw the line?

To begin with a pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. It is none of the pharmacists business for what type of medical reason a Dr prescribes a prescription. A consumer isn't obligated to discuss with pharmacist why they need a certain treatment.

[rainintothesea]

Originally Posted by Blade

To begin with a pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions. It is none of the pharmacists business for what type of medical reason a Dr prescribes a prescription. A consumer isn't obligated to discuss with pharmacist why they need a certain treatment.

I agree with you completely. This exact situation happened recently in Idaho... a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription to stop uterine bleeding unless a nurse at the doctor's office where it was prescribed would tell her (the pharmacist) that it WASN'T because of an abortion. (There is a law on the books there that says that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense an abortifacient on personal principle, but the drug she was prescribed wasn't an abortifacient. It was to keep her from bleeding out.)

Walgreen's, where this took place, is a private business. The pharmacist refused the woman's business on moral grounds. That seems to be consistent with the position of several posters, at least as it relates to the florist. I just want to know if those folks siding with the florist sided with the pharmacist, too... and if one is okay and one isn't, why? Where is the boundary, who sets it? Is it the use of the flowers necessarily the florist's business (gay wedding vs. straight wedding)?

Again, I'm not trying to kick up trouble, I'm genuinely curious as to the difference, and what people think about one vs. the other... and how, if we decide it's okay to do that in one case, we justify it not being okay in the other. Also, who decides? Have we collectively already decided, on many levels, that some forms of discrimination are not socially acceptable by putting policies in place?