It was decided in Citizens United that one of these pseudopersons still had the 1st amendment right of free speech.
So why can’t it practice a religion?
The ONLY basis of corporate court decisions is to what best benefits the State. And the word "rights' is grossly misused - corporations have only privileges. The media screws this up all the time, and lawyers and even judges do it too, because there's no law that prevents them from SAYING it - it still doesn't change the privilege into a right. even then, they are very careful to codify it, such as saying they are "determining" a right, or the "limits" to a right. Well, in REAL rights, they have no such powers. So by using these terms, they are indicating that they are talking about privileges - because that's the only thing they COULD talk about like this. And why do they do this? So people won't catch on!
So given that, privileges cannot be compared to rights. Privileges are whatever combinations of freedom to act that the government grants - ANY combination, or none at all. So speech and not religion is fine for privileges. Not for rights - but this isn't about rights, otherwise ALL the rights would have to be acknowledged as pre-existing and unlimited - and they certainly are not!