George,

Regarding ... the new religious pharmacies and the NM wedding photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex wedding:

It will be interesting to see how these cases play out, but I'm not sure they cases are really comparable, from a legal standpoint.

First, it wasn't a court that ruled on the New Mexico case, but a human rights commission. When the commission's decision is appealed by the photographer, I expect that she is most likely to prevail.

Unlike "public accommodation" businesses, most federal non-discrimination laws will not apply to photographers. Unlike public accommodation businesses, someone in the position of this photographer can decide that she just doesn't want to photograph your wedding for any or no reason: maybe your wedding dress is tacky, or she can tell you're going to be a pain in the ass. In any case, federal discrimination laws don't protect sexual orientation--though it appears that NM's do. I doubt a law that prevented a photographer from deciding what clients to take on would pass first amendment freedom-of-association muster (remember we still have private clubs that legally discriminate---even here in Charlottesville!)

Then, a different analysis has to be applied to the religious drugstore. First, a pharmacy IS a public accommodation business.

Federal anti-disc laws DO apply. But ... is it discrimination to refuse to dispense some legal medications? And so, do anti- discrimination laws apply in this instance? Maybe not, if they clearly label themselves as anti-contraceptive drugstores--they might then not really be a pharmacy, but a more limited-purpose dispensary, akin to a Chinese medicine apothecary. And since they don't sell condoms, they can argue (though perhaps not effectively) that they don't discriminate against women.

However, pharmacists' "conscience clauses" that have been pushed through state legislatures by christianist extremists haven't been tested in the courts. But imagine if this were to be carried to its logical extremes: what would we do about Christian Scientist pharmacists who wouldn't dispense ANY drugs; veggie pharmacists who wouldn't dispense medications tested on animals (all, no?); a scientologist pharmacist who won't fill scrips for psych meds... where does it stop? Do we need a different pharmacy on each street corner to accommodate the differing religious views of the various dispensing pharmacists?

These "pro-life" pharmacists are conveniently ignoring the fact that BCPs are prescribed for different conditions in addition to their contraceptive purpose. Is it the pharmacist's role to decide which person's health situation merits treatment and which not? Of course not. It's clearly a misnomer for these pharmacists to refer to themselves as "pro-life"---denying someone medications that may improve their health or save their lives is hardly evincing a reverence for life---a woman whose health would be seriously threatened if she were to become pregnant could be harmed by a pharmacist's refusal to dispense EC.

Unfortunately, today's economy prevents the likelihood of either a small full-service pharmacy or another conventional bigbox drugstore opening in the same shopping center or immediate vicinity--so the possibility that people will vote with their pocketbook by choosing not to shop at the drugstore for other drugs / convenience items, and thus drying up their business is remote. But, time will tell!

Valerie L'Herrou (Electronic mail, June 16, 2008)