Take my wonderful example below: The member of the Church of the Brethren who is an actual Christian and supports the sanctity of life in all situations. That person is forced to subsidize warfare, despotic regimes and any number of other things they find morally offensive. Admittedly, those foreigners aren't as sacred as zygotes who, as Ricky would say, are only separated from you and I by that little thing called "time," but they're still significant to some. I don't know that there is any action taken by any government, at any time, that does not impose upon its people a morality. Consequently, there will always be someone claiming that their spiritual beliefs have been violated, as you are now doing.
Instead of engaging in a argument in which you pretend your version of the state wouldn't impose a particular morality upon people, it would be wiser to argue why the morality imposed under your version of the state would be preferable to the versions offered by others.