morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Whateverist]

There's been a few threads recently about free will and morality, so my apologies for starting another one. The thing is, they got me curious about something so I wanted to ask you guys. 

So first of all, 2 things:

1. It seems many of you hold the opinion that morality is subjective. Meaning there is no real, set in stone, right or wrong. Basically, if one person thinks a particular act is good, and another person thinks that same act is bad, nether one of these 2 people is actually correct. It's all just a matter of opinion, like one person thinking red is the best color and another thinking blue is.

While moral values certainly are subjective, that does not mean they are held as matters of no consequence.  When you say those who hold morality to be subjective must therefore recognize that a difference in moral values is just a matter of opinion, you are only partially correct.  Moral opinions have both cognitive content and feeling/value content which taps into emotions.  When people disagree vehemently regarding moral values, the vehemence comes not from the cognitive component, but from the feeling/emotional component.  It is entirely reasonable to stand up for your subjectively held moral values.  

It is actually a strength of recognizing their subjective nature that one can then look objectively to the axiomatic principles underlying the disagreement.  Then, if the disagreement is in regard to a matter the law permits each person to decide for himself, then I have to back off and let it be.  Always insisting on doing what one feels is morally right (conceived of in an objective sense) may lead a person to insist in ways that are antisocial, like the antiabortion proponent who decides to shoot an abortion providing doctor. In the extreme, a person who insists on objective morals is often a dickish social bully.

To me, it is essential in a secular society that people be able to recognize when people's morals disagree and to seek peaceful ways to address those disagreements.  I'd go so far as to say it is better morally to develop the capacity to recognize what is or is not your prerogative when others act in ways which violate your moral standards.  No one should mistake their own hand for the hand of their god.  What is or is not your prerogative is contained not by how strongly we may feel about a matter but by ones acceptance of the social norms of the society in which they live.  So while morality doesn't change because of the social order, how one chooses to act on their own moral values sometimes should.

2. It also seems many of you hold the opinion that people don't actually have free will. Their acts are purely a result of circumstances and are not freely chosen. Basically the person could not have acted any differently because their action was only a result of their own inherent nature and whatever circumstances put them in the position to commit that act.

I don't personally say that we lack free will because I do not hold to an extreme standard for what constitutes "free will".  I think most of the discussion on this expression revolves around varying definitions of the term.  There are circumstances which can impinge on a persons usual degree of choice over there actions, and the law recognizes this.  

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

Since I am only a moral subjectivist and not free will denier, it looks like your question is not addressed to me.