Animal rights would mean animals would be immune from being used to fulfill any human purpose. PETA has it exactly correct. My point is that the interests of those who assert that the lower animals have rights is not to protect animals against cruel treatment. That can be done merely by an appeal to our consciences. But equating humankind as no more divine than inanimate objects or other animals isn't raising nature but lowering humankind.
Pantheists believe that everything is sacred, including the inanimate.
Yet, I don't notice them picketing Mount St. Helen's volcano for spewing its lava, burning trees and killing wildlife. It's only human action to which animal rights activists object. If we look to the center of all human ethics, the Golden Rule, we are told to treat others as we would wish to be treated. Animals can't treat us as we wish to be treated because they don't have the wit to entertain ethics at all. Which leaves us esthetics, which exists only in individual humans.