From the standpoint of Rawlsian liberalism, it is argued that parents must be prohibited from curbing the development of a child's agency, including the development of a sense of justice and the ability to author a conception of the good. This paper addresses a case in which children's future agency, as well as their current welfare, is at stake and yet safeguarding that agency and welfare conflicts with another tenet of Rawlsian liberalism, neutrality. Parents who possess, as a part of a comprehensive religious or moral doctrine, a belief that homosexuality is immoral or in some other way inferior to heterosexuality may seek to instill such a belief in their children. For a child of non-heterosexual orientation, the resulting outcome can be devastating. This paper asks if, given the limitations imposed by neutrality, the needs of gay and lesbian minors in such households can be addressed. I examine parents' and children's liberties from Rawls' perspective and explore the plight of gay and lesbian children in hostile households. I consider the conflict as one between two of Rawls' basic liberties, liberty of conscience and freedom of the person, and conclude that only non-ideal theory can address that conflict.