The text doesn’t just say “make no law” but also “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. If the government makes some kind of implicit threat, for example that regulators might not look at a private company the same way if it doesn’t choose to comply with a request to censor someone’s speech, that’s clearly an infringement. They don’t need to specifically pass a law banning speech for it to be unconstitutional. The people who wrote the contrition were smart people. They were clearly aware of this and that’s why the amendment is written with that particular verbiage.

The text clearly means that the law cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. It's not saying the law can only not establish a religion, and then, the government, in general cannot prohibit the free exercise. It says congress cannot make a law abridging the free exercise of speech.