This is a follow-up to this post.
Wesley J. Smith notes that the Obama administration did not argue only that a corporation cannot have a religious liberty interest--a questionable proposition when put forward in that sweeping form. The administration went farther and argued that simply engaging in for-profit activity as a so-called "secular" business means that the businessmen in question lose any claim to a religious liberty violation by federal law. This is a remarkable position.
It is also, as far as I can see, in direct conflict with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Ed Whelan of National Review has a lengthy discussion of the HHS mandate and the RFRA here. I haven't read every word, but at that time this preposterous claim regarding profit-making had not yet come out into the open from the administration, and it looks to me as though he doesn't address it. In any event, the text of the RFRA itself (which Whelan quotes) hits it out of the ballpark. The RFRA says that the federal govt. may not burden a person's exercise of religion unless it has to do so for a compelling government interest and has chosen the least restrictive way of doing so. There is not the slightest implication that the RFRA applies only to "houses of worship" or "pervasively religious institutions" or religious non-profits or any such highly restricted set. Rather, it applies to persons. Presumptively, it seems to me that this would at least include businessmen who make a profit and that it would be possible for the government to violate their religious freedom concerning the way in which they run their profitable businesses.
This administration is, to put it mildly, not overly concerned with the legality of its actions, preferring power over legal principle whenever it can get away with it. This just looks like another such example. The blatant disregard of the clear meaning of the RFRA and the desire to substitute their own entirely made-up ideas of how much they ought to be able to restrict the applicability of religious liberty are thoroughly typical.