In a local elementary school, two boys entered the lunchroom. The lunch menu for today was simple and delicious: pizza with chocolate milk. One boy was excited. He loved pizza, and he loved chocolate milk.
The other? Not so much. While he thoroughly enjoyed pizza, he found the taste of chocolate milk disgusting. He much preferred strawberry milk, and he wasn't going to take this injustice.
The second boy walked up to the lunch lady and told her to give him some strawberry milk. Despite such rudeness, the woman compassionately explained to him that chocolate milk was on the menu, not strawberry. This would not do for the young lad. He was determined to get strawberry milk brought into the lunchroom, even if it meant talking to the Principal himself.
The Principal was less than willing to work with him, and sent him back to the lunchroom.
The two boys ate their food, one with chocolate milk, and the other with no drink at all.
It was not long before the angry boy felt his rights were violated. After all, his friend was able to drink what he wanted to drink. Surely the same right applies to him (it is irrelevant that what the first child wanted to drink happened to be what was served.). The second boy believed that he was being considered a second-class citizen, and that he was inferior. The first boy mentioned to him that they were equal; after all, both boys had equal access to chocolate milk, and both boys had equal lack of access to strawberry milk. The only difference was that one preferred chocolate, while the other preferred strawberry. This was an issue of preference, not of rights. The second boy responded by calling the first boy a bigot.
The lunch bell rang. However, this child's fight was far from over. He began to cause a ruckus and dissension among the student body. There were those who secretly loved strawberry milk, but drank chocolate milk instead. Others were vehemently against these strawberry-drinkers, and went so far as to say that God hated them because of their drink of choice. The whole school was soon enveloped in controversy. The Principal took action, by giving the decision to the Classrooms. Those Classrooms that agreed could allow their students to have strawberry milk. Those that didn't agree would have the ability to transfer to another one of the 50 Classrooms on the premises.
So, the Classrooms took it to a student vote, and that brings us up to today.
Here are the verdicts thus far:
37 Classrooms have voted to maintain the current chocolate-milk-only status quo.
2 Classrooms have voted to allow strawberry-milk-drinkers their preference.
11 Classrooms have voted to maintain the current chocolate-milk-only status quo. However, in these Classrooms, the Teacher disregarded the will of the students, and legalized strawberry-milk drinking.
In addition, there are other movements brewing. Some children drink goat milk instead of cow milk. Others drink milk that comes from cows not old enough to be properly milked. It will not be long before these alternative drinkers demand their "right" to drink their beverage of choice at the lunch table.
We could go into moral and health issues about what beverage to drink. But that is not the scope of this story. The point of this story is that the boy demanding his "right" of drinking strawberry milk at lunch is absurd. That was his preference. He had the same right as the chocolate milk drinker. Just because one doesn't like the right they are given doesn't mean they can act as if their rights are stripped from them, or that they are a second-class citizen.
