Wrong.
The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 .
First Amendment PRIVILEGES.
The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law is a discussion of the blurring of the use of the TERMS "rights" and "privileges" in the Harvard Law Review.
However, this article does not equate God-given rights with government granted privileges. What it does is follow court twistings and turnings to re-define "rights" as those privileges that are so crucial to the functional operations of corporate entities (as subject to 14th Amendment federal jurisdiction), that to deprive them would be equivalent to functionally destroying them, or ensuring their demise.
That is not the same as acknowledging something untouchable because it is God-given. In fact, it is because it is not the same, that judges and justices have slithered around the involved definitions for a hundred years, and articles like this one have been published to justify the slithering. Because the big problem has been the CLEAR distinction between the two jurisdictions. So equating the two as jurisidictionally equivalent "privileges" has occupied a LOT of effort by the legal system over many, many years.
Nevertherless, this effort has been in terminology ONLY - not ACTUAL jurisdiction. God-given rights are subject to Common Law jurisdiction, while privileges (whether they are called rights or not) are subject to Administrative Statutory, Regulatory or Admiralty Law jurisdiction (they all being the same jurisdiction applied to different situations). This has not changed a bit - NO administrative court will base itself on the Common Law, and so does NOT deal with God-given Constitutional rights.
And it was the 14th Amendment that codified this diverting of the Court into solely Administrative jurisdiction.
I've made a great deal of legal truths very plain to you and others in this thread. However they are not rare in themselves - just left unspoken by lawyers and judges. For these issues are made clear to first year law students as matters of simple fact. So your "arguments" are juvenile and tedious, not to mentions belligerently obstructionist denials of simple logic. For that reason, I don't believe that you don't understand the truth of what I am saying. Rather, I think you are... motivated... to prevent other readers from accepting their own understanding of it. And as this subject has to do directly with the freedoms understood and claimed by Americans, I'm afraid that doesn't sit you very well in my eyes - at all. So I won't be wasting my time with you again.