Originally Posted by
bocastephen
I don't think you can compare nut allergies to smoking - the latter is harmful to everyone, including the person doing it, and long term exposure can result in certain death far earlier than expected, while a nut allergy is something that does not affect anyone but the one with the problem, and then it becomes a question of the rights/needs of the affected vs everyone else.
Over the years we've been down this road in multiple vehicles starting with the annoying soccer-mom types who've objected to reading or video material (including IFE) their precious delicate flower might catch a glimpse of - and then insisting it be turned off. Then it became perfume and cologne....and now here we go with nuts. I would agree - where does it end?
An airplane may be privately owned, but it's considered a public space and there needs to be balance. No one is suggesting at the slightest that we're going to blow nut breath on a child with a deadly allergy, but there needs to be some form of balance and fairness to both sides, soccer-mom opinions notwithstanding.
I like this argument!
The question should never be whether an action is "offensive" to an individual.
Rather whether it is violating a specific law within a specific country's jurisdiction.
I am sure that millions of people might be offended if I consume pork or drink alcohol.
I will be equally offended if they do not!
And I can cite dozens of other practices that they might engage in that I find offensive.
However, they have the same rights as I do under the law wherever we happen to be at the moment. Presuming equal treatment. Admittedly, a HUGE leap of faith.