If you want to focus on the word "force," go ahead, but the force is legal and fair, just as we are all "forced" to obey traffic laws or risk being cited and fined or to have driving priveleges revoked.
I focused on it because you made a point of saying in no way are they being forced, presumably as part of your argument for why it is fair.
Secondly no we are not all forced to obey traffic laws. Most of us willingly obide by the rules. Again you are abusing the meaning of forced and not forced to make it seem like it's the same for everybody.
It's not, if you're a pharmacist who agrees with birth control, you're in a very different position than someone who doesn't. One persons freedom is restricted and the others isn't.
I think it's you who is playing with the words Stephen. You used the words "forced unfairly" and that's nonsensical, because fair means "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate." You can say the rules themselves were arrived at in some unfair manner, or you can say someone is ignoring the principle of fairness and just forcing someone, but there is no "fair forcing" by definition, when we are talking about legitimate laws. You are avoiding the moral discussion by redefining all laws to equal "force", that's why I called you a libertarian. That's what they do.
I say, having a consistent law about filling prescriptions that is based on science, not religion, is the fair, right and moral thing to do. If you don't want to participate in that, either don't, or break that law. I would consider the person breaking that law to be immoral, wrong, and unfair.