Yes, I have one question: do you often put so much time and effort into making a fool of yourself?
Your question assumes facts not in evidence.
Here are the problems with your Google "research."
Oh goody... some nudnik on the Internet is going to tell me what my problems are.
1. Pharmacists are regulated by the government. So yes, the First Amendment does apply.
No, that's not how it works. What First Amendment protected interest,
specifically, is being infringed by government regulation of pharmacists if the company that owns a pharmacy chooses to fire a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication?
2. I can use Google too. Took me about sixty seconds to find this opinion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/82482561/Plan-B-Decision Took me another few minutes to skim it. This judge ruled that regulations requiring pharmacists to dispense the abortion pill are a violation of the First Amendment, just like I indicated. You'll have to forgive me if I take the analysis of this federal judge over some keyboard warrior on the internet, who is a self proclaimed "legal dilettante." LOL! (That's really funny.) 
Let's start from the bottom: of course the analysis of a Federal Judge carries more weight than what I write on legal issues. I never disputed this, nor did I claim otherwise. Now, onwards:
Stormans v. Selecky, a great case, but it's not quite as cut-and-dry as you make it. The most important thing about the case, in this instance, isn't the decision though. The most important thing is that you twisted what I said. It's possible that regulation by the State requiring pharmacists to dispense a particular medication
may have First Amendment implications. But I said nothing about Government regulations. I said that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense an prescription on the grounds of his religious beliefs, doesn't have a claim against his employer under the First Amendment since the First Amendment bars the Government, not private individuals. I also said that the claim would be likely to fail based on exceptions explicitly listed in the Civil Rights Act.
Nothing in this case changes any of that. Stormans v. Selecky is about a regulation by the Pharmacy Board,
a Government agency, promulgating a rule
requiring pharmacists to dispense Plan B.
Apples and Oranges.
Now, since it's interesting, let's talk about that decision a bit too, shall we?
You will note that (a) the Fourteenth Amendment claim that they pharmacists make was rejected (at least for the time being) by the Court, and quite strongly. You will also note that (b) the Court, when conducting its analysis, had this to say about First Amendment concerns (internal quotations omitted):
While the Free Exercise Clause immunizes religious beliefs themselves, the Clause obviously cannot and does not bar regulation of all religiously-based conduct. Indeed, the Supreme Court has “never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from complying with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that a State is free to regulate.” To do otherwise would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
Consistently with precedent, the Court recognizes that laws can ban some religious conduct without violating the First Amendment. The Court then turns to the question of whether the law/regulation in question does or not. A primary concern voiced by the Court (and, really, the deciding factor) is that the law provides certain kinds of exemptions for secular reasons but not for religious reasons. I don't necessarily agree with the Court's analysis, but there is certainly merit to this argument.
[Before we go on, it's important to note that I am a libertarian; I do not believe that the Government should be able to force a pharmacy to carry a particular medication or, for that matter, to dispense it. I have faith that the market will deal with businesses which don't respond to the needs of the community that they operate in.]
With that said, I don't agree with the conclusion that a rule requiring a pharmacist to dispense a medicine that is in stock and for which there are no business reasons to not complete the transaction can or should violate the pharmacists' First Amendment rights. I believe that if you cannot dispense medications because of your personal beliefs you shouldn't be a pharmacist. And I certainly
don't agree that pharmacists have the "freedom" to not only refuse to dispense a prescription, but to withhold it effectively prevent a person from receiving the prescribed medication from another pharmacist.
Now et's consider a somewhat more extreme example: You do know that doctors and nurses are
required to render emergency aid and failure to do so will (almost always) cost them their license, right? So what about a doctor who witnesses a man suffering from some acute emergency but does nothing to help on the grounds that his religious beliefs prevent him from helping the man on account of his, for example, sexual orientation? Would a doctor who lost his license because of failing to render aid have a case on First Amendment grounds?
"But," you might say, "that's an emergency. Other rules apply there." Well, ok. What about an insurance adjuster who refuses to authorize radiation treatment for someone because he sincerely believes that prayer will make the cancer go away and if the man really believed he'd be saved?
So the question that we must ask: are regulations that require people who are engaged in certain professions to behave professionally violating their First Amendment rights? It's tricky to answer and the best we can do is: "well maybe."
The Court struggles with this very question and it's the quintessence of the issue debated in Stormans v. Selecky. It's certainly an interesting decision, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet. The case is on appeals as we speak and will, almost certainly, go all the way up to the Supreme Court should the 9th Circuit Court upholds the decision in panel and in an en banc session.
But again, this is a different topic. Remember, my original point was that the pharmacists First Amendment rights cannot be violated by their employer who
can require them to dispense a medication and
can fire them for failure to do so while remaining shielded from Civil Rights Act violations under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e).
3. Regarding your Title VII stuff, I've actually been interviewing, hiring, managing, and firing employees for a long time, so I have to be aware of what I can and cannot do as an employer.
Great. So, you were aware of the bona fide occupational qualification exception?
What I know is I have to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, unless that accommodation would create an undue hardship on my business. So yes, in addition to the First Amendment, I think Title VII does apply.
Yes, you do have to accommodate practices that don't create an undue hardship on your business. But you can do more than that. There are cases where you can make a decision based on factors that would, under other circumstances, be illegal to consider, where those factors are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of your business.
I would argue that a pharmacy firing a pharmacist who refuses to dispense certain medication on the grounds of his religious beliefs is allowed. After all, dispensing medication is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a pharmacy. Do you disagree?
4. Pharmacists are not required to dispense all kinds of medications. They can refuse to dispense medications for a variety of reasons, including the cost, refusing to accept various forms of insurance, avoiding risky drugs, etc.
This is a bit of a disingenuous argument. Of course pharmacists aren't required to dispense medications to people who can't pay or which the pharmacy doesn't choose to stock. They can also refuse to dispense medications if they have a good faith belief the medication will be abused or the prescription was fraudulently obtained. The question is do pharmacists have a right to prohibit someone from receiving medications not only by refusing to fill a prescription but by confiscating the prescription and refusing to return it.
Class dismissed. You are sentenced to 1 hour of additional Google remedial research training.
Dismissed? I don't think so. I hope you took notes though, there will be a test.
