IMO that alone is no problem at all; even a positive personal thought. As it it just their personal belief. All are free to believe as they like, also Bahai.
The problem starts, when they believe like in Animal Farm and claim "all are equal but Bahai is more equal" .... "all eventually need Bahai"
And we had a thread about this the last few days, and I have seen a few Bahais who explicitly said that they believe this way.
So I agree with you, that there are plenty of Bahai who think this way. Only 1 told me, he disagrees with this, but the others were not corrected.
So I gave them the advantage of the doubt like I always do, although
@Vinayaka warned me by granting me 2 "optimistic" frubals I think.
And it appears that the majority of the Bahai think this way (in Holland all Bahai I met ... like 100 think this way ... they told me).
Actually you completely misunderstand. It's not "some are more equal". It's the implications if this is perfectly true.
This is not the first school of thought to propose universal love, nor is it the last.
Christianity notably die not say exactly this. They said love your neighbors as yourself, and later love your enemy (but this latter part goes back to an earlier lesson about how when you turn the other cheek, it heaps lumps of coal I think the term was). The distinction is clear, this person is your enemy, and you're letting them become aware of their sin, versus trying to retaliate and them deciding you are a mean person (because they have no self awareness). The Christian loves their enemy (but calls them an enemy) because they understand they are suffering too.
I said you're not the first to propose equal love without any standards. Well, here's an earlier one. Mohism. Ir was a contemporary of Taoism, before Taoism basically swallowed most of its teachings and adapted some of its own. Confucianism believed in conditional love with merit and worthiness, while both of these rejected conditionality. But Mohism was the opposite extreme, and no longer exists, while there are still devoted Taoists (despite borrowing the same position, Taoism always tended toward moderate approach to things).
So what would happen if you did treat everyone equally? Well actually the NT shows exactly what. And you can call this an endorsement of it, but it's clearly about the Master's decision on how to pay his workers ( "is it not my right to pay however I want?" ) and an analogy for our eternal reward, not a condonement of general treatment of people. In fact, it shows very quickly how this fails. The master pays those who worked a full day 1 coin. Then he pays those who worked a few hours less 1 coin, and so on including those that came at the last hour. Except for the last guys, most of the workers are understandably unhappy. You see, while in theory, yes we should love all people, to treat them all the same is actually not to love them (if you don't pay attention to differences, you are indifferent by the very sense of the word). But this passage is not saying treat everyone the same, because the reward actually has a different value for the different groups of workers. This is because this afterlife is a subjective place.
Suppose you run a soup kitchen, and you dole out the same amount of food to everyone. Then someone comes in and makes trouble, smashing up the place. And asks for two portions (you later find out that he's giving to a friend who can't come). Equally loving everyone as you say would result in that person getting on bowl of soup, and their tantrum treated as though it didn't happen. But far from loving as you say, you didn't really pay special attention to this guy. And he probably slowly starves while you say you treated all equally. Yeah by portioning stuff out like a bureaucrat. I use this example because it is the exact scenario in a Christian movie
Same Kind of Different as Me where the homeless man in question is personally reached out to, because as a trouble maker, he needs more attention than the others. Unconditional love does not mean indifferent love, nor is it the hypocritical equality of Animal Farm. It means treating people as individuals, something you already failed to do to me by creating a strawman.
Yes, Baha'i sounds good on paper but some people need tough love to motivate them to be more active, some are happy with just being one of the regular folk and wouldn't welcome personal attention, and still others need sympathy. When you love everyone the same, you love no one.
A just man treats everyone as they deserve to be treated. And so some are punished.
A fair man treats everyone the same. And so all people are ignored.
A kind man treats everyone as they want to be treated. And so some are loved.