The real problem here is the law in the first place. I have a big problem with making laws requiring people to sell particular things. There's an even bigger problem in situations of serious moral or religious objection to selling it, but even a law requiring the sale of say toothbrushes would be something I'd have a problem with.

How would we be inconsistent? In virtually every other arena, we allow people who run stores to choose which products they do and don't wish to sell and allow customers who are unsatisfied to shop elsewhere.

It seems that we are being inconsistent here by treating pharmacists with religious objections different from every other case where a vendor doesn't want to sell a product.

(And don't compare it to a doctor who has, say moral scruples against surgery and won't tell the patient that surgery is their best choice. The pharmacist who doesn't wish to provide plan B is not providing a defective product or misleading his customers.)

1 – It would probably go out of business.

2 – People would get their food in the nearest neighboring community.

3 – If their is sufficient income opportunity in that community someone else will be likely to open a store and sell food.

I wouldn't treat it differently. I respect freedom of association and allow most forms of private discrimination.

A pharmacy doesn't have to stock literally everything, but under state law "the pharmacy must maintain at all times a representative assortment of drugs in order to meet the pharmaceutical needs of its patients." There is no pharmaceutical equivalent for Plan B, so this may be tantamount to a requirement that it be regularly stocked, though I think there is wiggle room in the law for running out of something temporarily.

I have no problem saying that if you won't do the job, you can't do the job.