Anonymous wrote:A hypothetical analogy would be a club for young children where all kids were welcome to join, except those who said that they were left-handed or had chosen the "left-handed lifestyle". In addition, no parents who lived the "left-handed lifestyle" would be allowed to wear the club uniform or serve in a leadership capacity.
As long as the parents attempted to "pass" as right handers and didn't "flaunt" their left handedness, they could serve as leaders. But if it became known that the parents were "left-handed" or another parent complained, the parent/leader would be asked to stand down.
When questioned on this rule, club leaders would explain that their rules require members and leaders to be "morally straight" and it was their belief that using the left hand or being left handed was a sign of moral impurity. Left handed lifestyle, they thought, was linked with dyslexia, learning disabilities, insanity, and sloppiness. They didn't want leaders to model their left handedness to impressionable young children and show that a decent person could be left handed. That would just tend to validate the left handed lifestyle, and perhaps ruin impressionable young children.
As a result of a Supreme Court ruling, left handed parents knew that they weren't welcome in the club and very few let their kids join. That led to right handed parents not seeing what the big deal was. "It doesn't even come up in our troop/den/pack. We just go camping and hiking. No one checks to see what hand people are using."
Or suppose they were or were not Mexicans or Hitler or Catholics or Republicans or blah blah blah
|