Conservatives attacking liberals for boycotting Chic-fil-A

I wrote a blog about this yesterday, but upon reading some other comments on the matter, felt the need to write another. 

I read several comments from conservatives which read something like this, "When Christianity/The Bible gets haters, where were these same liberals to defend them? They say they believe in tolerance, but not if they don't agree with it..."

I am a self-described liberal. I think what many conservatives lose sight of in these types of arguments is that they seriously believe the rich, white men (white straight men), the church/Christianity are all under attack. This is what many of them believe. They truly feel that these individuals'/groups' rights are slowly being trampled upon. As a liberal, I can say that I believe in the rights of white men (white straight men - I happen to be one), of rich folk, of Christians/Christian churches. I believe all of these groups of people and organizations deserve equal rights under the law/Constitution. At the same time, I believe that other groups of people - minorities in terms of overall population and/or in terms of rights under the law (women) - deserve equal rights as well. This would include: Women, African-Americans, Latinos, Native-Americans, Muslims, Asian-Americans, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender individuals, etc., etc., etc. 

I think what many of these die-hard conservatives believe is that if we provide equality to all these other groups of people, increasing their rights under the law, it will decrease their rights. It seems that some (perhaps many) of them believe that people on polar opposite sides of a spectrum can't be afforded equal rights, because if one group (women, for example) attains equal rights, another group (men, in this case) will lose some rights. 

This isn't true, though. Relating this to sports and perhaps basketball more specifically, men start out with 100 points to women's 77. Women have to play catch-up, from 23 points down on average, and for performing the same job as the men. How is that right or fair? If both the men and the women started out at 100 points a piece, how would that be taking away men's rights? They stayed at the same spot where they resided in the first place - at 100. The women's points increased to where they start off equally with the men. 

For gay rights, it's not as if homosexuals are asking for the legal right to marry and on top of that, a free car as a wedding gift from the government. No, they are asking for equal rights - the right to marry their partner. This wouldn't decrease the rights of heterosexual couples any. It'd just increase the rights of homosexual couples. 

So, when looking at this, yes, it's true that we liberals tend to stand up for the little guys (or gals) - for those whom have yet to access equality. When you hear us speak out, it's usually in favor of women's rights, gays' rights, minorities' rights, etc. We believe that the majorities should maintain their rights, but those rights have already been attained and we're simply trying to level the playing field as far as equality goes. So, no, you probably won't hear us standing up for rich people a great deal, or Caucasian men or straight couples or Christians. The majority in this country is Caucasian, heterosexual and Christian. Their rights were fought for and won a long time ago. We liberals are simply attempting to garner equal rights for groups whom have yet to garner those same rights fully.