The ARs don't afford them the same rights as humans. What they actually do is put up a set of ideas, like the "five freedoms" which don't hold up under scrutiny, at all, and falsely claim that those trump human rights. If your right to eat or conduct yourself as a human or your privacy rights conflict with a vague set of wrongheaded "animal rights" then theirs trump yours. It's entirely arbitrary and intentionally confusing. They often mislabel this as "animal welfare." That is part of their drive to co-opt and coerce.
The "Five Freedoms" are listed here: http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm The words in bold are the original wording. The words in regular type are their qualifiers. Those qualifiers were a big mistake. When your enemy hands you poison and tells you to eat it, you don't put ketchup on it and try to eat it and smile. You shove it as far down his throat as you can, doing as much damage as you can, and you explain to him that his botulism sandwich is not fit to eat.
Something had to go missing for people to be able to swallow the wording of the Five Freedoms at all, and that was the recognition of positives intentionally phrased in the negative. There is a huge difference between "freedom from hunger and thirst" and "having enough good food and clean water." The qualifiers can be shed at any time and you are left with the original crap, which the Farm Animal Welfare Council was kind enough to set in bold print. An animal that is free from hunger, thirst, exposure to uncomfortable temperatures, emotional discomfort, or injury, is dead. By species it is extinct.
It is not too strong a statement to say that the people who foisted the Five Freedoms on the world belong under the jail for infamous crimes that include vandalism, arson, death threats against human beings, and the killings of innocent animals as part of the vandalism. Let them eat what I care to feed them and they will kiss up to me and beg for Burger King.
The "Five Freedoms" were deliberately, calculatedly, written such that only dead animals could fulfill the criteria. The FAWC would have been better off biting the bullet, or shooting it at the miscreants, than modifying their demands to make them seem palatable. When they give the extremists enough rope to hang US with, our animals are DEAD.
Real animal welfare would use positives. We feed and water the animals according to their needs. We comfort them and give them medical care when they are ailing or injured. We give them happiness when we can. It's a lot easier to do that for an animal than for a human. I'm going to dismiss entirely the "normal behavior" thing because it's bunkum and not worthy of trying to explain to an extremist. None of the credit goes to the extremists for "making" me do anything. They have caused the deaths of thousands, maybe millions of animals, the non-existence of many species individuals that the world is short of, such as tigers, lions, and cheetahs, and they are crazy sick hateful. I don't worry so much that abuse is "disgusting." I am concerned with the fact that I can create a place where animals are happy and healthy and I can give happiness and health.