As luck would have it, I was getting a needed IV infusion when SCOTUS announced Hobby Lobby could refuse medical services under some form of religious conscience objection. Given that transfusion of drugs by IV is hardly "settled science" for some religious objectors Good Luck if your employers decides that an IV stick violates his conscience
In Hobby Lobby did SCOUS "pierce the corporate veil" by identifying the closely held corporation with its owners? What affect does this ruling have on liability by owners of closely held corporations? Was that why the distinction with publicly held corporations was so important?