"Hey, there are groups I like that I don't think have enough rights,

so screw everyone else" is what this boils down to.
I'm going to borrow from one of the responding comments:
As a member of the LGBT community, I can testify that having a CPL and Open Carry as an option (whether I consider it in light of "cover failure" or "open carry as 1st Amendment protected statement, not unlike coming out of the closet") protects my right to wander about unmolested and in extremis my ability to fend off those that would physically assail me.

It is my considered view that the very fiercest of gay bashers will be significantly slowed by a .45acp JHP placed center of mass at velocity. Being able to carry that tool without worrying about qualifying for the attentions of the judicial system if I should (horrors) bend over to pick up a pencil or a nickel laying on the ground and suffer accidental exposure of my firearm is a clear win for common sense. 
...
 Might I suggest you check your prejudices at the door and rather than engaging in cheap insults and barely concealed bigotry that you explore the facts and actually meet some of the people you attempt to smear?
 But that would mean actually thinking!


Found over at Uncle's, along with something you need to yell at your congresscritter about:
 The NSSF asks you to contact your state’s two senators, asking them to vote yes on S. 3525, The Sportsmen’s Act.  The Sportsmen’s Act is a collection of 19 distinct bills.  One bill is aimed at the efforts made by one anti-hunting group to ban what we know as ammunition.  By banning “traditional” lead-bullet and pellet ammunition, they hope to drive the cost up to further dissuade shooters.  The package known as The Sportsmen’s Act includes a bill to stop that nonsense.  The House version passed with overwhelming—but not unanimous—support.