You asked: How do people, as groups of people, not have the rights of people?

I answered: They do, as people. Nothing about their position in or outside of groups affects that.

Where is the non sequitur?

Who said that? They continue to have rights within the group as well, and they can make whatever group decisions they would like.

This doesn’t imply that we need to accept corporate personhood for all purposes.

Arguing in favor of making clear legal distinctions between humans and corporations does not automatically imply denying them a right to free speech. It may seem that way when we say: the declaration of human rights does not apply to corporations, because they are inhuman, but we actually argue in favor of a declaration of corporate rights, not against it. The key point is that Corporations are more than just groups of people. But more so we want this distinction because we want an effective Corporate Criminal Law.

No this is not what he said. You don’t need to treat the group differently. Since all people have free speech in the group, then the group effectively has free speech as well no?

We give corporations certain legal rights that humans do not have, such as the ability to avoid individual responsibility for corporate crimes or debts.

It sort of makes sense that you can't stack rights - you either get to choose your human rights, or your corporate rights (which may have limits that your human rights cannot).