See, the whole concept of morality is mired down in superstition and belief in an above-human authority. The key here is that the authority, morality, is above the level of the individual. It doesn't have to be God it can be a secular concept of "society", it's identity, traditions and so on, which dictates morality.
For example honour. Why is it good to be honourable and bad to be dishonourable? If you accept the primacy of personal morality - that every person is free to determine his own code of right and wrong, than both are equal. As are many other things, indeed all moral questions. The whole attempt to poke and prod morality, to stand up to the boogeyman of "ancient moralism" and do cute little analysis studies - is first of all people inventing clever devices by which they prove to themselves they are better than the great unwashed masses, and secondly it is involving the intellect where it does not belong. The peasant's morality, ignorant and traditional, is a valid as anyone's. I think that what what I believe is right because I believe it. If I think gays are the scourge of the Earth, telling me with self-righteous pride that I'm stupid and wrong is attempting to impose a uniform moral standard, the very same thing the "free-spirits" cry foul about. If you say "tolerance is king" and then add "except for those who choose not to be tolerant", I don't see how that constitutes a valid arguement.
The above theory is just a way for people to feel good about themselves, "Wee, I'm a free spirit unlike those brutish old rednecks who are trying to impose fascist morality on my freedom". I say bull****. "Liberals", and the word is absurd for a number of reasons but I'm using it for the sake of expediency, are just as perfectly conformist as anyone else. So you say you listen to NPR, read philosophy and buy fair-trade coffee. Astounding. Just like fifty million others. The fact that you think that there are two sharply distinct, opposite cultures in America, the good "liberals" and evil "conservatives", one of which you take to be self-evidently superiror (naturally the group you consider yourself a part of), kind of puts the lie to your claim of being a totally un-conventional thinker, free from the prejudices of your surroundings.
In today's environment, an Amish is a more rebellious figure than your perfect free-spirited, enlightened, educated liberal. You assume that conformity means only conformity to traditional beliefs, so the more piercings you have and the more Sartre you read, the more free you are. But it cuts both ways. A loud, rude, un-enlightened, nationalist who beats his wife and hasn't read two books in his life is very un-conformist, given that the prevailing trend in Western society today is to mimic as perfectly as possible that educated, enlightened, tolerant, prosperous middle-class guy. His is more free in his morality and less of a conformist than your typical non-conformist.
When everyone is a rebel, the only true rebel is the un-rebel.
