Ironically, with this comment you've taken another fringe position that puts you in direct conflict with your other fringe position, which is that there is no constitutionally-acknowledged distinction between churches and for-profit businesses that are not engaged in religious worship, teaching, advocacy, etc.

I don't see how this position is fringe, or where it's in conflict of anything else.

Because while, on the one hand, you think the government should steer clear of imposing burdens on religous practices, you apparently believe that the government retains some role in determining just what constitutes a bona fide "religious practice" worthy of deference in the first place, thereby inviting the government to take an even more intrusive role in religious life than any currently threatened by the contraceptive mandate.

I don't know who said this. Not I, for certain.