"The logic of his decision undermines the basis for any religious or - as I understand it - moral objection to the "legal obligations" that concern you so much."

Why? Are you saying that religious beliefs, which are subjective and cannot be substantiated, should override the law? Pretty much an argument for anarchy. As Hume said, "freedom of thought does not mean freedom of action" (or words to that effect).

"What would be the basis for conscientious objectors?"

Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture.Let me state, once again, that where a person's belief leads to actions that infringe the right of others, they are unacceptable, but where they do not infringe the rights of others (such as refusal to kill another person no matter what the situation) then the law protects that right. You still haven't answered my last question in my previous post - if you're not missing the point you are certainly evading it.