That's not it at all

According to this short article at Time.com:

Neil Noesen, a relief pharmacist at the Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., was the only person on duty one day in 2002 when a woman came in to refill her prescription for the contraceptive Loestrin FE. According to a complaint filed by the Wisconsin department of regulation and licensing, Noesen refused because of his religious opposition to birth control. He also declined to transfer the prescription to a nearby pharmacy and refused once again when the woman returned to the store with police. The prescription was filled several days later by the managing pharmacist. But Noesen was accused of unprofessional conduct and will face an administrative law judge on June 22. Antiabortion groups are urging Wisconsin officials not to punish Noesen. He and his attorney did not comment.

I don't have a problem with him refusing to fill the prescription on moral grounds. What I do have the problem with is his refusal to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. When he did that, he crossed the line and attempted to impose his morality on someone else. He committed an ethical breach and for that he should be fired and his license revoked.

Later in the article:

Laws are vague on the subject. But two states, South Dakota and Arkansas, have passed laws that explicitly protect pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions on moral or religious grounds. Similar legislation has been introduced in 13 other states. Karen Brauer, who says she was fired by Kmart in 1996 for refusing to fill a birth-control prescription and is now president of Pharmacists for Life, says such laws are needed. "Pharmacists are being expected to do things that they do not believe they should do," she says. Counters Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood: "The question here is whose conscience counts. This is about a woman's most fundamental right of choosing when to have a child."

This doesn't have anything to do with the right to choose when to have a child so much as it has to do with a man who refused to perform the tasks which are a requirement of his employment. If he doesn't want to fill birth-control prescriptions, fine. But he needs to inform his employer who will then decide whether or not to continue to employ him. If he remains employed then he should either be teamed with someone else who will fill the prescriptions, or be required as a condition of his continued employment to transfer any such prescriptions to another pharmacy without question. If I were to tell my boss that I had a moral compunction against using computers, do you think I'd stay employed where I am very long?

The way I see it, if you are in a profession where you are likely to be required to do something that you consider immoral and will refuse to do, you ought to be looking for a different career.