I don’t disagree with anything you say, but I think you miss my point. Consider: in-house corporate lawyers have the job of protecting the “corporation”, not officers, employees, directors or even shareholders. They are charged with protecting the entity called the “corporation”. The “corporation” is in fact distinct from its employees/officers/directors/shareholders. It goes beyond the limitation of liability aspect. Nothing prevents the members from speaking in their own names, even as a collective. But the corporation ITSELF is nothing but a state-cretaed entity, not a group of people. I think its clear that the framers envisioned “churches”, as a collection of people, as having rights. I don’t think its as clear in the case of state-created “corporations” ... and I think this is the only relevant question. The practicality or policy aspects should not be relevant to Constitutional interpretation.
My job was to defend/protect corporate (agency) interests ~ their job was to tell me what the law was on a wide variety of matters.
I did my job. They did their job.
As consequence when you walk into a post office you know what to do next and pretty much understand the process through implicit cues so that little overt rule citing is needed.
You will also note that there are no electric cattle prods guiding you down a chute toward an open window ~ that's the part attributable to the lawyers. All the rest of it is attributable to my kind of folk (non-lawyers) ~ and we could have used those prods.