Rob's op-ed on conscience clauses

I appreciate Rob's typically eloquent op-ed on the conscience-clause debate.  I wonder, though:  Wouldn't it be just as accurate to characterize the piece as being about "why the movement to pass laws overriding a pharmacist's right of conscience is misguided" (as opposed to, "why the movement to pass laws protecting a pharmacist's right of conscience is misguided")?  It is one thing to think, as I take it Rob does, that pluralism on this matter is better than a mandate in either direction.  But, if we take it as given (and I think we might as well take it as given) that the clear momentum is in favor of anti-conscience mandates, then I'm not sure that Rob's good points about pluralism, free association, etc., should lead us to oppose -- as a defensive, second-best measure -- laws protecting the right of conscience.  Rob?