It's true that many moral intuitions we have end up seeming immoral when we reflect on them further, but this says as much about our difficulty with reasoning morally as it does about the supposed immorality of our moral intuitions. I think it's naive to assume that philosophical or logical approaches have a monopoly on morality. That being said, I also think it's unproductive to outright dismiss any moral appeal on the grounds that you would not be happy with implementing its conclusion. Moral philosophers writ large willingly engage with Kantian ethics that be easily interpreted to preclude contracts[0] as well as Singer who advocates for the (disabled) infanticide.[1] Even if we might disagree with a given conclusion, the ultimate object of moral discussion is moral progress, and this does not need to come in the form of final agreement on a principle to be followed in the future. It can come in the form of mutual understanding, education of onlookers, or greater theoretical development even in opposing directions. Implying that someone's conclusion (which I might add is not more extreme or inoperable in its conclusion than many offered by Marx, Kant, Aristotle, Hume, Plato, etc... it is after all only refusing to provide services to the police) is unpalatable for you and denigrating it to an arbitrary opinion is probably detrimental to all of these goals and I urge you to desist with such a tactic.

[0]: On the grounds that when you give someone something in exchange for a promise of theirs that you are using them as a means to an end. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/09/11/a...