Religious excuse bogus

The ruling of a federal judge notwithstanding, a pharmacist’s refusal to sell the “morning after” pill has nothing to do with exercising his freedom of religion.

It amounts, rather, to forcing his beliefs upon his customers. By doing so, is he not interfering with their free exercise of their own beliefs?

If he can’t fulfill the requirements of his job without hindering or attempting to control the actions of others, he should change careers. His free exercise of religion allows him to make decisions about only his own behavior, not someone else’s.

The “religious freedom” argument here is bogus. If such a ruling were to stand, how far would we be from any provider of goods or services refusing to purvey them if they didn’t happen to share the religious beliefs of those seeking them? That’s not religious freedom; it’s a step in the direction of religious tyranny.

Steven A. Wells

Spokane