If you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then so does everyone else. If one other does not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then no one does. If all species respond to any command that one simple command is to survive. Every individual has the right to survive. If every individual has the right to survive then it follows that every individual should be free to act in ways that ensure their survival. Any arguments made that would assert that the rights of the individual are not absolute are tyrannical arguments that would subjugate the individual to accepting rights granted them by the tyrant rather than believing rights are inherent. The rights of the individual are natural rights and if they were granted at all they were granted by God and can not be taken away by any legal authority regardless of what act of legislation may of passed declaring otherwise. Rights are most certainly absolute, what is not absolute is that every individual will fight for their rights.
All rights are relative to the society to which an individual belongs.
I will assume that the question is asking about legal rights under the United States Constitution and laws. Also, I will assume that by absolute you mean not subject to restriction.
The answer is generally no. Almost all constitutional rights can be restricted given a sufficient governmental interest. First you must understand that legal rights provided by the Constitution define the relationship between the government and the individual and not between individuals. Thus, the First Amendment's right of free speech restricts the government and its agents from preventing or interfering with a citizen's speech. It does not restrict a private person from such interference, e.g., one's private employer. Further, given a compelling governmental interest, a citizen's speech can be restricted or even prohibited.
Another example is provided by the Supreme Court's recent 2nd Amendment decision. Citizens have a constitutional right to possess a firearm. However, the Court recognized that right can be restricted in significant respects. Certain citizens can have that right taken away, e.g., felons, persons with certain mental health problems, and others subject to court orders forbidding such possession. Further, registration of firearms and waiting periods also restrict the right.
There are some constitutional rights that are not subject to restriction, e.g., the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the 13th Amendment's prohibition against slavery. The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments provide that a citizen's rights to life, liberty and property can not be denied without due process of law. Thus, the very text of those Amendments provide for restriction and denial but require that the procedures used be consistent with due process. However, you must remember that the Constitution can be amended, or in case the government was ever overthrown, it could be discarded. Legal rights are created by law and thus are subject to law. If the law changes, so can the rights.
There are those, however, who believe in something call "natural rights." Such "rights," they believe, come from god or are somehow inherent in one's status as a human being. Such "rights" are simply their beliefs. They are not enforceable and do not provide justification for, nor restriction of, any action. Simply put, they are not rights but beliefs. Legal rights are created by an authoritative body recognized by the majority of people subject to it as legitimate. There are no "rights" in the air, no metaphysical entities called rights that inhere in human existence.
For more information and discussion on this topic, see the Discussion for this answer. Click Discuss under Question Tools in the Tools menu.