In a recent case in the UK an assistant in a pharmacists(BOOTS) refused to serve a customer the morning after pill. Her excuse was that it was against her religion to do encourage this. A Boots spokesperson stated that the customer should have been directed to someone who would have assisted.
Give the following scenario what do you think should happen. The only pharmacist in a small highland town is owned by a person of the above religious persuasion. They are the only employees. The nearest other pharmacy is 20 miles away as is the nearest medical centre. They refuse to serve items on religious grounds. Do you think that the local council would be in their rights to withdraw their licence to trade in that area?