(This diary began as a comment to the diary Reason #1 SCOTUS Will Regret Hobby Lobby. But as I neared completion, I realized it's more of a question to the community rather than a comment.)
Before the Hobby Lobby ruling, limited-ownership corporations had no religious rights that needed protection. Now such corporations can hold the owners' sincerely-held religious beliefs and are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFCA), and government must find a way not to trample these corporations' religious rights when enacting laws. Or words to that effect.
The so-called corporate veil separates the owners' money, rights and identity from that of their corporation. This separation between owners (the natural persons) and the corporation (the legal entity) has perhaps not been "pierced" per se. What the court has ruled is that corporations have a before-unacknowledged right of religion, and this right must be respected by government. (I'm not arguing the correctness of this ruling. Like the diary I note above, I'm merely assuming that this religious right now exists, and the corporation's religion is as deemed by its owners. And the noted diary uses that as an example of piercing the corporate veil.)
How does one now have owners also face natural-person responsibility for their corporation's misdeeds? My first thought involved product injuries. The GM manager who deemed it too costly to recall the faulty ignition switches could be charged with murder or assault. BP executives could be charged with a dozen counts of manslaughter for their negligence in causing 12 deaths in the Horizon blowout in the Gulf.
But would the Supreme Court agree that the corporate veil can be pierced with a murder, manslaughter or assault charge? Unknown.
The one method for piercing the corporate veil that the Supreme Court has just allowed is religion. So how would religion be used to reverse-pierce the owners? If my religion demands an eye for an eye, could the Supreme Court rule that financial penalty isn't sufficient to satisfy the demands of my religion? Could the Supreme Court rule the corporate owners stand trial for murder and face the natural-person penalties to meet my religious needs?
Any thoughts on how the separation of owner and corporation would be pierced in a direction opposite of the owners reaping benefit, in a direction where the owners face natural-person liability for corporate misbehavior?