An Exchange with NRO's David Freddoso

Writing at The Corner, NRO's David Freddoso posted the following:

Small, Temporary Victory for the Freedom of Conscience [David Freddoso]

A federal judge in Washington State suspended a state law yesterday that forces pharmacists to sell the abortifacient "morning-after pill."
That anyone should be forced by the government to sell anything - even aspirin - seems an extremely difficult argument to make. But this sort of compulsion is required in order to drive all believing Christians out of the medical professions, and this is the goal of some liberals. Recall Mayor Michael Bloomberg's push to make all medical students at New York City hospitals perform abortions as part of their training - it's nothing short of a filter for certain kinds of people.

The push to guarantee continued unlimited legal abortion and "reproductive rights" comes only at the expense of property rights and freedom of conscience (or in this case both). If you don't care about this issue now, you should think again. The liberal legislators who are depriving medical professionals' rights of conscience now with respect to abortion and contraception may be back for your business or your profession later in some other form.

Which prompted my email to Freddoso:

David -

You write:

That anyone should be forced by the government to sell anything - even aspirin - seems an extremely difficult argument to make.

You need a license to be a pharmacist and it's not up to the individual pharmacist to decide what may lawfully be proscribed. If one does not like that fact, one can choose not to become a pharmacist. Lest you think this is a liberal speaking, let me point out: cab drivers also are licensed and are obligated to take passengers pursuant to local regulation and law. Very famously, Somali Muslim cabbies at Minn-St Paul Airport have exercised their "freedom of conscience" by refusing drivers who are carrying alcohol or disabled passengers who use guide dogs, booze and dogs being hated by Muslims.

According to your standard, we are apparently to applaud the Muslim cabbies for their brave stand.

Or should they just piss off and get other jobs where they can indulge their "conscience" at their leisure?

Or is it now conservatism's stance that everyone has a right to a license in a public profession and can then decide for themselves which duties that license entails they will exercise?

Which prompted Freddoso's reply to me:

Well, I am for making all butchers sell veal. Let's pass a law.

And all fast-food restaurants should have Mountain Dew or some equivalent -- I'm tired of walking in and seeing only Orange, Coke, and Sprite.

Which prompted my response back:

You're ditching the issue. Are those Muslim cabbies proud standard-bearers of individual freedom? Or not?

Which prompted Freddoso's further reply:

Strictly speaking, I am a big fan of signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason." That's my position in an ideal world.

I understand that we don't live in that world. But you are implying that the presence of weird people out there in this world (the Muslim cabbie, whose beliefs are not legit Islam anyway) somehow justify the continued erosion of the rights of business owners until they are gone.

I'd like to see us do less of that, not more. That is why I made the post.

So, it appears that in addition to not understanding basic Common Law principles--such as the duty of common carriers to accept passengers--and in addition to not knowing about important events--the situation at the airport did not involve a random "weird" cabbie but a whole host of cabbies--it now also appears that NRO's commentators are now Imams, pronoucing on the true nature of Islam.

What lucky people we conservatives are these days. We now know what "legit Islam" is, right from the source.

I would have continued the conversation, but appraently my mild questioning was too much for Freddoso, who blocked any further email from me. In NRO's world, it seems, sarcastic and ridiculous responses are alright but tough questions aren't.

David, maybe next time you could ask conservative movement giant Kathryn Lopez to weigh in?