I just can't agree to your reading. Such an unrestricted conception of commerce, without even delving into the "rights" of a fictional entity, could and would eventually be used to leverage abuses against other rights of the individual too numerous to list. I dare say feudalism would not be an inconceivable outcome.
I would fully support a tightening of the language regarding commerce, including by amendment, to reflect the fact that engaging in commerce does affect circumstances outside ones private property, and as such is every bit as legitimately regulated as the interactions between individuals.
As a matter of practice, no such clarification is needed.
There must be some dividing line between the sanctity of each man's "vine and fig tree" and what may be coerced from individuals by engaging in commerce.
If such a dividing line is not strictly Constitutional, it should be made so.