I don't really know what else to say, because you're simply wrong on this. A quote from a layman's explanation of what the Bill of Rights supposedly means does not trump
the actual text of the Constitution and years of jurisprudence. The first amendment applies to more than just individuals. If you don't want to take my word for it, take the Supreme Court's:
From
First Nat Bank v. Bellotti:
This is well settled law.
The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.
They are bat**** insane to believe that a corporation, that is not alive, has no possible way of expressing itself and is not a human, can have rights.
It basic anthropomorphism.
Where are you getting this from?
GM is nothing but a brand for which a business operates.
GM is not a living person nor can it talk, move, or express emotion.
It can not hire anyone, only a person can hire someone else.
Again, this doesn't make any sense. The Catholic church is the one paying the salaries of priests. If government passed a law forbidding the expenditure of money on priests, that would be analogous to government passing a law forbidding corporations to spend money on advertising. Using your framework, because neither one is technically a person, they have no rights and those laws would be fine. If you want to say that the individual members of the catholic church are having their freedom of religion infringed by such a law, then you would have to say that the individual members of a corporation would be having their freedom of speech infringed by such a law.
The individuals can say whatever they want but a church and corporation can not.
A church cannot talk, cannot express itself, does not have a brain.
Laws that restrict the establishment of a church which is required for one person to practice religion, infringe on that one person's right to religion.
And as explained above, this is incorrect.
Faulty interpretations don't make for good arguments.
So your theory is that because you think it would be inefficient, that somehow means they shouldn't be allowed to do it?
That's not it at all, I was just saying that the reasons for grouping are not always more efficient in lobbying for a specific individuals cause.
To be honest this isn't my main objection to corporate personhood.
My biggest problem is the deferment of liability.