The law has lots of weird terminology. For example they have "exhibits" that are really just some crappy figures in an appendix of someone doing something bad, and not actual exhibits that you can buy tickets to visit.

> A corporation is a person, not a human. Person is an abstraction used by law, but it has no direct relation to a human being.

Most English dictionaries define person as a human.

I think the legal concept of person ("legal" or "juristic" person) as applied to corporations is something entirely different that, by unfortunate coincidence, shares the same name.

The definition for person is "a living human".

This argument is just ridiculous, a corporation is a corporation. That contains subsets of people who have rights (shareholders, employees).

Isn't this sort of defense a weak argument by the courts. If your abstraction is to override a well known common usage/function of a term, then the abstraction doesn't hold much water?