Condemning Condemnation?

A particularly irksome question I've stumbled upon lately is why some people seem to only be intolerant of moral condemnation, and not any other specific immoral acts themselves. It's a little different in my case that they're not saying things such as "don't judge," but are rather becoming provocative and hostile when I explicate a firm moral stance against something in particular. At the same time the person will evade a great swath of obscene things that are incredibly immoral, and their only issue is that I've called it out. What makes these people provocative to these kind of stances?

My hypothesis is that by condoning certain acts and ideas that are known to be wrong to some extent in a individual's knowledge they want to evade that knowledge so as to feel comfortable with what they're doing and sanctioning, which makes it so that anyone with convictions becomes their enemy by way of not allowing the evasions to persist. I know, for instance, some particular persons who associated with a person who was blatantly immoral and malicious, and yet they maintained contact with him out of a sense of "duty." When I acknowledged that person's immorality he got a pass on all his behavior while I faced vitriolic hatred for my stances. It's incredible hypocrisy.

Now I know in particular why a person might be afraid to pass judgment, for he may fear facing hostility and judgment in return, so it is only the flimsy stance against passing judgment that confuses me, where a person will vaguely recognize a lot of wrongdoings but only become upset when someone opposes them on principle. What's going on here?