Miskatonic
Auror
This doesn't make sense in terms of an equality argument. Everything exists within a context. If your interpretation of something relies on a purposeful disregard of historical and cultural context and you're making judgments as if those things don't exist, then you're not arguing for equality but something else. You're arguing for a fictional ideal that could exist, perhaps, if the world wasn't the way it is or has been. You're arguing for the wolf of privilege in the sheep's clothing of inequality. It has deceptive attraction because it is so simple, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand. You either believe in the same standard for all participating groups as a rule of general principle, or you believe in the notion of "some people are just more equal than others". Making exceptions falls into the realm of hypocrisy.
I'm talking about general principles here. If one was to desire the notion of equality then as a rule it would create a standard that everyone who also wanted equality would have to adhere to.
It's not any different than the idea of free speech. If you are for the freedom of speech then you can't pick and choose who it applies to and still be considered genuinely for it. You are creating double standards that go against the general principle.
Equality doesn't exist and will never exist in the real world. That's the reality of it all. I'm not implying that it ever has in a historical context.