Rob Vischer has a piece in The American Enterprise:

This lesson must be heeded, even in the pharmacy. When morality and health care collide, individuals—whether pharmacy owners, pharmacists, or customers—will see the collision through wildly divergent convictions, and their desire to live out their convictions will naturally lead them to associate with like-minded others. The government should allow them the space to do so. If a pharmacy wants to require all of its pharmacists to provide all FDA-approved drugs, or to forbid all of its pharmacists from providing certain drugs, or to leave it within the pharmacist’s individual moral discretion whether to provide certain drugs, so be it. The pharmacy must answer to the employee and the customer, not the state, and employees and customers must utilize market power to contest or embrace the morals of their choosing. Individual consciences can thereby thrive through webs of morality-driven associations and allegiances, even while diametrically opposed consciences similarly thrive. The winner-take-all contest over the reins of state power is replaced by a marketplace where multiple conceptions of morality can coexist. 

Both sides in the pharmacist debate have made the government the only relevant audience for their claims. If they were instead simply given the space to live out their convictions, their survival in the market would require them to target the hearts and minds of their neighbors, linked together in common cause. Rather than short-term political advocacy aimed at one-time legislation, a vibrant marketplace enlists actors in an ongoing conversation. Living out moral convictions through everyday decision-making fosters social ties in ways that the top-down enforcement of binding laws cannot.