Theoretically, when a car is parked on someone's property (a hospital in this case)

[avebury]

45. In the case of Hobby Lobby, that is a double edged sword.

Once you allow the owners the ability to use their personal beliefs to dictate corporate policy, you remove the veil of protection to the personal assets of the owners (and/or stockholders). Part of the purpose of incorporation is to protect personal assets from the legal consequences of the corporations. Once you remove the veil of protection, the owners are at risk.

For example, say you had a privately owned hospital. Say you have a patient that dies as a result of the gross incompentence of the staff leaving the hospital open to civil suit. It a situation has arisen where the veil of protection has been removed (as it has in effect been removed from the owners of Hobby Lobby) the owners (and/or stockholders) could be made parties to the lawsuit and possibly lose all their assets (depending upon the amount of a potential award).

Sometimes life is all about allowing someone to get something that they think that they want - then driving that double edge sword back at them and decapitating them. It is all about strategy and who plays the game better. Sometimes you just have to play the long game.

In dealing with a patricharcal management system one needs to know how to play the game and pick your battles. The issue of fighting against a smoke free environment under the guise of "You are not going to tell me what I can do in my own car" smacks of short sightedness and cutting off your nose to spite your face. Strategically, it is just a poor battle to fight and will probably cause the OP to give up a lot without gaining anything. Honestly, if I were management it would have the effect of putting the employee on my radar and I have a long memory. I have no patience for stupid moves.

The OP's whole reaction to this management decision smacks on what I would expect to hear from the Republicans and Tea Part not liberals.