CTA9 rejects pharmacists' religious-conscience claims

The Los Angeles Times has the story, here, about the decision in Storman's v. Selecky:

The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

At First Things, Wesley Smith warns that (among other things) the decision "also means that all pharmacists in the state must dispense death to terminally ill patients in Washington who receive lethal prescriptions."  Paul Moses, at Commonweal, weighs in here,  (Rob Vischer, readers might recall, touched on this general issue during his recent guest-blogging stint;  here is an earlier post of mine on the topic.)

Any reactions to or thoughts about the case?

UPDATE:  In a fit of inexcusable blog-myopia, I missed Howard's earlier -- as in, from yesterday -- post on this case.