I will admit that there is a little bit of bias on this thread. I certainly associate a pharmacist who would act this way with scary evangelical beliefs. I come from a place where having many children without sufficient financial resources, because "this is what God wants", is seen as a relatively trashy and selfish thing to do, whereas birth control is seen by many as a savior of women and their goals/dreams, for what it's worth. This is where a few of the earlier posters are coming from with the "deny birth control = demeaning to women" point of view.
I actually just talked about this with my grandmother, Grandmere - she's 75. She was the first female five-time Jeopardy champion. She's brilliant. She got a degree in 1949, got married, and had six kids with an alcoholic before she became a subject in one of the first clinical tests for BCP, back when it had something like ten times current hormonal levels. She was desperate for a safe method to stop having kids. In raising all of these kids and managing a family that held on by a string, she was never able to have a job or go to graduate school, either of which I know she would've loved. She feels that she was in the last generation of women for which uncontrollable fertility curtailed most dreams/goals that take place outside the house. I think deep in her heart, if she'd been born today, she might've gone into academia and never had kids at all. The gift/power that birth control gives me as a woman to set my own destiny - for someone to deny me that, over the orders of myself and my doctor, and inconvenience me for the sake of their moral comfort, is actually fairly offensive. It's not the hallmark of a civilized people, I guess you could say.
There is the sense that the cross-wavers who live more like the way women HAD to live in 1900, packing many kids into a small house, with unstable incomes and unpaid bills, are putting their families and their kids at a huge disadvantage, and are in a sense turning their backs on a hundred years of feminism and medicine in favor of religious adherence to procreation. This is made more amusing by the fact that Jesus felt no command by God to procreate, did he.
Another point: you don't see that "big family stigma" when there's a common belief in the community that the family that had all those kids can afford them. Can you think of the family in your town with a lot of kids and a lot of money? Do you think of them differently than you might if they were collecting benefits from the gov't? There's a sense that those women say "God wants this" because all of those babies give them a sense of purpose in their lives, more of a personal gain and automatic identity than most of them might be willing to confess. In short, you get the luxury to say no to birth control when you have cash and resources to cope with the consequences. These pharmacists know nothing about that for any of the individuals that they deny.
What about the women who use them to regulate ovulation, like some have stated? Do these pharmacists ask them to explain why they need them. If so, that violates their code of ethics. Ugh! 
