Is he making the libertarian argument that the law should not legislate morality whatsoever, because virtue must be freely-chosen? The subtitle reads: "In Britain, compulsory virtue stifles individual liberty." But he does not argue that law should not promote virtue. Rather, he talks about the freedom of association:
It is a necessary condition of freedom that private citizens should be allowed to treat with, or to refuse to treat with, whomever they choose, on any grounds that they choose, including those that strike others as repellent. Freedom is freedom, not the means by which everyone comes to precisely the same conclusion and conducts himself in precisely the same way.