I think it's the use of the word "person" in any sense that is confusing and foments anger. Better to call them "legal entities" or something.
It's a very weird contortion of logic to say something like, "Only people can be the subject of a legal instrument; We need corporations to be the subject of a legal instrument; We must make corporations people."
I mean, we have control over the underlying premise here. We can change it. Maybe that makes some people less angry. Maybe that makes it easier to reason about corporate issues without accidental conflation of the subtly different aspects of "person".
I think it's a kind of path-dependency in how Anglo-American common law was agglomerated. It was easier to patch in corporations as "legal persons" than to create a parallel designation.
It's a very weird contortion of logic to say something like, "Only people can be the subject of a legal instrument; We need corporations to be the subject of a legal instrument; We must make corporations people."
I mean, we have control over the underlying premise here. We can change it. Maybe that makes some people less angry. Maybe that makes it easier to reason about corporate issues without accidental conflation of the subtly different aspects of "person".