What is interesting to me about this case is that the Washington State rules actually have a religious exception in it, allowing an individual pharmacist who has a religious, moral, philosophical or personal objection to filling the prescription to refuse to fill it, as long as the pharmacy itself has some other way of filling the prescription (such as another pharmacist available via phone or in person).

This case seemed to hinge on the fact that the rules that were adopted seemed to say individual pharmacists could refuse to fill a prescription (as long as there was another way to have the prescription filled at the same location), but a pharmacy could not. The application of those rules was appropriate according to the court and didn't impede anyone's free exercise of religion.

The full opinion was a fairly interesting read for anyone who is into that kind of thing. There were some interesting arguments made and resolved by the court. I especially thought that the court's discussion of the plaintiff's alleged substantive Due Process right to "refrain from taking human life" and how they really drilled down to what was at issue was well done.

I think this was a case where the court clearly got it right and I'd agree with stefan about the last sentence of the article, especially since the exceptions already existing in the law could have covered the individual pharmacist plaintiffs. If their employer would make an accommodation for them it wouldn't be an issue. If the employer wouldn't, they either need to accept the fact that they are in a secular profession and fill the prescription or get a different job.