ok no worries.
"fully supportive of the chemists actions" is a bit strong. i think i was mildly agreeing to the conscience clause in that i believe an individual should be allowed action/inaction according to their own conscience. to varying degrees of course depending on the situation.
for example, chakas conscience compelled him to demand the removal of voodoo widgets from boots as he felt they were being irresponsible, so i would let him have his half hour of sunshine.
the difference here is whether a chemist (or pharmacay assistant, whatever) should be allowed to act in accordance with their conscience (religious belief if you prefer) providing that they advise someone where it can alternatively be sought, or whether someone else in the shop can serve them instead.
ultimately, i think along the lines of the pharmacy code of ethics which states "make the care of patients your first concern". after all, if (using a muslim example) they would not only refuse birth control measures to a patient, but presumably alcohol based medicines and other prohibited ingredients as well. but if they immediately pass a patient on to someone who can meet their needs, then perhaps they are meeting that requirement.
it seems that lloyds didn't know about the religious convictions of the employee and how that would affect the role, so it is a choice for them whether to sack the person or not for being unable to accept the nature of the job and carry out those duties according to the code of ethics. if they did lknow, then they should have implemented a system to overcome it.