SCOTUSBlog is hosting an on-going symposium on the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga cases (challenges to the contraceptive requirements in the ACA): http://www.scotusblog.com/category/special-features/contraceptive-mandate-symposium/
Some articles are better than others (I stopped reading Mailee Smith's piece at "family businesses like Hobby Lobby"), but since several of the posters also submitted amicus briefs, they all make for interesting reading.
My view is that of Gibbons's decision for the Sixth Circuit in Autocam v Sebelius (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0278p-06.pdf
): “[I]ncorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct
legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs....We are without authority to ignore the choice the Kennedys made to create a separate legal entity to operate their business."
Look, every legal variety of business has pros and cons. The chief benefit of forming a corporation is that the business exists separately from its owners/operators, so that liability questions are directed at the corporation, not the individuals. You don't get to have it both ways: either your business is separate from the individuals, or it isn't. You don't get to pick and choose.