Religion Clause: 7th Circuit Again Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits

So for the past week or so. I have been trying to get a handle on this recent ruling concerning "Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits".

In Grace Schools v. Burwell, (7th Cir., Sept. 4, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a RFRA challenge to the Obama administration's accommodation under the Affordable Care Act for religious non-profits that object to furnishing contraceptive coverage under their health insurance policies. The majority, relying to a large extent on the Circuit's recent decisions in Notre Dame and in Wheaton College, held that the accommodation does not impose a substantial burden on the free exercise rights of various Indiana-based Catholic non-profit charitable, educational and health care institutions.

I guess what I struggle with is, "how" there is an issue with the "accommodation" aspect at all. I mean seriously, how the hell is informing the government that [insert religious organization of choice] has a religious objection to the mandate a "burden" under RFRA?  The mandate isn't the issue per se (in this particular instance), it's the process of "getting" an "accommodation" they're bitching about. 

Recall that the accommodation now allows a religious non-profit that objects to the contraception mandate either to complete a government form or to simply inform the government that it has a religious objection to the mandate. If so, the government then informs the non-profit's health insurer or third-party administrator that the insurer or TPA has to provide contraception directly to the non-profit's employees and students free of charge,,,.

,,,the accommodation itself violates their religious freedom, because it makes them complicit in the provision of contraception. ("But for" their certification, they say, their insurers or TPAs wouldn't be required to provide contraception. Moreover, they claim a religious objection to doing business with insurers or TPAs who provide contraception to their employees, even if required by the government.)

I also find Manion's dissent a little bizzare,

The court, through a perfunctory examination, interprets the accommodation’s twisted framework and holds that it frees the religious nonprofits from having to power the mandate themselves and, thus, does not violate the RFRA. The court is wrong: A thorough examination reveals that the accommodation’s tangled mess is hiding the fact that the extension cord gets its power from the nonprofits’ health plans and must be plugged in before it will work. It also exposes the fact that the government is forcing the nonprofits to plug in the accommodation themselves by signing the self‐certification or providing the alternative notice.

Who exactly generates that so=called "power" the religious nonprofits enjoy?

Religion Clause: 7th Circuit Again Upholds Contraceptive Mandate Accommodation For Religious Non-Profits