Let’s imagine a court case. A man goes to a local restaurant. It’s a family establishment run by a little old lady in her 70’s. She’s Baptist and her religious beliefs dictate that she will not abide by drinking nor serve alcohol. She’ll provide water, milk, ice tea, lemonade, sodas, and all kinds of beverages… but not alcohol.
Along comes a man one day who orders a beer. The little old lady informs him that it is against her strict religious beliefs to serve him alcohol but that he can certainly go next door or to any of 100 bars or restaurants or grocery stores within easy driving distance if he so wishes.
The man tells this little old lady that this interferes with his Constitutional rights, his right to pursuit of happiness. She insists her right to freedom of religion is equally important and her right is not preventing him from exercising his rights. In fact, requiring her to serve him alcohol would inhibit her rights and going elsewhere would not impinge his.
The man sues the little old lady and the governor tells her that she cannot prevent him from exercising his right to enjoy alcohol regardless of her own rights.
Seem fair?
Now substitute “little old lady” with “pharmacist” and “alcohol” with “morning-after pill.” Substitute “restaurant” for “pharmacy” and other restaurants and bars for the same. Grocery stores may stay the same. This exact thing happened in Blegoyavich’s town. Now how do we decide these kinds of cases? How far do we let an individual’s rights extend, particularly when there is an alternative? Your thoughts?
