[quote="Havard, post:9, topic:189982"]
Legislation has nothing to do with it. This is administrative law. I'll say it again: the RPSGB is a governmental regulatory body.
Perhaps you are confusing the RPSGB with something like the American Pharmacists Association, which is purely a professional society?
Havard, I am sure you have greater experience with UK governance than I do.
The Code of Ethics spells out seven principles which must be followed or risk losing one's professional registration.
In the section explaining how those principles should be applied, is specific mention justifying what the pharmacist did.
3.4 Ensure that if your religious or moral beliefs prevent you from providing a particular professional service, the relevant persons or authorities are informed of this and patients are referred to alternative providers for the service they require.
The article you cited in the first post indicates that the pharmacist did follow that guideline, which explains why the Royal Pharmaceutical Society said he was within his rights.
I apologize for my confusion, for doubting you and for misleading anyone.
So yes, it does seem strange that this incident made the news. I wouldn't think it to be an unusual occurrence if religious objection is specifically mentioned in the Code.