family environment differs significantly from that of their school companions and acquaintances in the neighborhood where they live, exposing them to ostracism and discrimination, which would also affect their personal development.”139 119. The Court considers that to justify a distinction in treatment and the restriction of a right, based on the alleged possibility of social discrimination, proven or not, that the minors might face due to their parents’ situation cannot be used as legal grounds for a decision. While it is true that certain societies can be intolerant toward a person because of their race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation, States cannot use this as justification to perpetuate discriminatory treatments. States are internationally compelled to adopt the measures necessary “to make effective” the rights established in the Convention, as stipulated in Article 2 of said Inter-American instrument, and therefore must be inclined, precisely, to confront intolerant and discriminatory expressions in order to prevent exclusion or the denial of a specific status. 120. The Court notes that social, cultural, and institutional changes are taking place in the framework of contemporary societies, which are aimed at being more inclusive of their citizens´ different lifestyles. This is evident in the social acceptance of interracial couples,140 single mothers or fathers and divorced couples, which at one time were not accepted by society. In this regard, the law and the State must help to promote social progress; otherwise there is a grave risk of legitimizing and consolidating different forms of discrimination that violate human rights141. 121. On the other hand, with regard to the argument that the child’s best interest might be affected by the risk of rejection by society, the Court considers that potential social stigma due to the mother or father’s sexual orientation cannot be considered as a valid “harm” for the purposes of determining the child’s best interest. If the judges who analyze such cases confirm the existence of social discrimination, it is completely inadmissible to legitimize that discrimination with the argument of protecting the child’s best interest. In the instant case, the Court also emphasizes that Ms. Atala had no reason to suffer the consequences of the girls allegedly being discriminated against in their community due to her sexual orientation. 122. Therefore, the Court concludes that the argument of potential social discrimination was not adequate to fulfill the declared purpose of protecting the best interest of Ms. Atala’s daughters. 139 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, pages 2672). 140 Cf. The Supreme Court of Justice of the United States of America, Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (April 25, 1984), annulling a court’s decision to grant custody of a minor to the father because it considered that the mother’s new relationship with her new partner of another race would imply suffering for the child, due to the social stigma attached to the mother’s relationship, who through her decision had allegedly put her personal interests before those of the child (“The question, however, is whether the reality of private biases and the possible injury they might inflict are permissible considerations for removal of an infant child from the custody of its natural mother. We have little difficulty in concluding that they are not. The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be beyond the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect”). 141 In this regard, in a case on discrimination based on religious belief in the context of a judicial decision on the custody of minors, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the argument of a national court, according to which the best interest of two minors could be affected by the risk of social stigma due to the mother’s beliefs since she belonged to the Jehovah Witnesses religious sect. Cf. ECHR, Case of Hoffmann v. Austria, (No. 12875/87), Judgment of June 23, 1993, paras. 15, 33 to 36. 41