I am not going to parse the law in an attempt to defend the alleged actions of the pharmacist, I will simply point out that anyone who supports the right of a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war yet opposes the right of anyone in the medical field to always opt out of any procedures they have a similar moral objection to is a hypocrite.
You brought this up more than once, but I think it is a flawed analogy.
My reason is that a soldier who is a CO would not retain a combat job. If a person in the medical field will not perform a procedure or dispense a drug as a matter of conscience, should they be either fired (discharged) or forced into other duties (given a non-combat role)? Your analogy seems to me to be saying that a CO equates to a doctor refusing to perform procedures but having no change in his work, and that just doesn't fit.
If I have mistaken the point of this analogy please correct my misinterpretation. And please do not take this to be a comment on any other point or posts you have made in the thread, I am not attempting any judgments on other arguments made. Thanks!