I seem to have stepped on some tails with my remark that some are more deserving of rights than others.
Which is hardly surprising given that the discussion related to what rights people deserved, not on the basis of what they might have
done, as would be the case of a "felon", but for what they inherently
are. May was not told that she shouldn't bother to apply for a job because she was a felon with a criminal record, but simply because she's a robot.
I believe there is a very big difference between restricting the civil rights of a criminal, and deciding that a law-abiding person is inherently less deserving of rights because they are, for example, female and/or a member of an ethnic minority. I can, with reservations about the means or extent, support the former, but never, ever the latter.
That frog is disturbingly reminiscent of the Hypno-Toad.