I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but I’ve not seen that. The corporate veil argument is interesting to me. The article spins it as though the shareholder is being sued for not making the cake and therefore separating himself from the corporation.
But to me, the issue is that the Corporation should be the one getting sued, not the employee who just happens to work there. It’s tough to divide because he appears to be the sole shareholder.
A corporation does not give up any of the legal protections given to the shareholders just because it is a separate entity. The Supreme Court ruled that the owners of a "closed corporation" are treated differently under the law because -- unlike the ownership arrangement in a large, publicly-traded corporation -- their ownership of the corporation can be tied to bylaws, standards of conduct, and even religious tenets.
This is why Chick-Fil-A, for example, does not open on Sundays and does not have to worry about shareholders suing the owners for breaching their fiduciary duty by closing every store in the chain one day of the week and losing a lot of potential revenue. The company is not a publicly-traded corporation and therefore doesn't have to meet the same standards as one.