That’s not a sensible definition of “social conservative” because by that logic radical islamists aren’t also social conservatives.
> The masons and quakers are examples of groups with tolerance that make them compatible with other ideas, mixes, radicalism and a republic
Social conservatism doesn’t necessarily preclude pluralism. Quakers and Puritans may have been fine living in adjacent colonies, but that doesn’t mean they were “tolerant” of departures from behavioral norms within their own communities: https://worldspirituality.org/quaker-discipline-html/
That’s a good analogy to what America was like at the founding. American pluralism arose from multiple socially conservative and religious groups agreeing to share a country while leaving each other alone.