Almost kicked off FLIGHT! Please help

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If that child is two years old, doesn't matter. Best to teach them early on that they can't always have what they want when they want. It's just one of those facts of life. If they refuse to eat..... well, they aren't going to starve to death. Be prepared, bring a variety of snacks like I do, and let the kids help choose different things if necessary---before you leave home. Let them also know that they may not get their beloved favorite drink until after you land. Won't kill them, I promise.

This is the type of commentary I am speaking of.

I will try not to be offended, but if you expect folks to walk in your shoes, you should try to walk in there's.

My 2yo child is a picky eater who cannot be force fed and doesn't speak. Now--thus far he is not on the spectrum.

But are you seriously suggesting or implying that it is improper parenting as to why we can't deal with our kids. Seriously!

Yes, I know it won't kill him.

But just so that things are fair and you understand that you may lose your hearing due to blood curdling screams since he doesn't know enough ASL yet to communicate, then things are hunky dory. AS far as we know he is not on the spectrum, but his inability to communicate is presently a huge impairment in our lives.

So much so that I was called a horrible parent in Walmart recently b/c he was telling me he wanted out of the cart after running off prior to that and I wouldn't let him have his way. To the onlooker, he appeared to be a "mouthy kid" as he was called by an old goat. But he was simply doing his "grunt language" which would have translated into "please mommy please let me down nooooooooooowwww". But sounded more like whining b/c folks can be clueless when it comes to his inability to communicate. If it was a tantrum, it would have been obvious--and painful to listen to.

I don't put down any family for dealing with a PA, but I wish they'd think twice before assuming that it is a parenting issue only when having to provide alternative.


"It's only two hours" is a cop-out to the severity of the issue when speaking of whether or not it is fair to other passengers to be told after they are told on a plane.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Please don't think that all people with some sort of disability behave this way.

By any means, I don't think that of everyone.

However if someone fails to notify folks ahead of time, I fail to see why they get shocked that they may be inconveniencing others and have the gall to tell me "it's only two hours--you'll live". To me that is an entitlement attitude and not constructive to the discussion or safe for their child.


These same parents would probably be PO'd at a screaming baby for 2 hours on the flight if the parent was unapologetic and said "it's only two hours, it won't kill you."

I've been given some excellent tips her on how to modify my travel kit the next time we fly.

But it is fare that we have a long way to go for PA peeps.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

"It's only two hours" is a cop-out to the severity of the issue when speaking of whether or not it is fair to other passengers to be told after they are told on a plane.

Of course, there are situations that I understand like yours, people with diabetes, other health issues, and people who are just plain hungry who happened to bring pb. But, if I had to guess, for the rest of the population on the plane, it really would be a minor inconvience.

 

[JLKennedy]

This is the type of commentary I am speaking of.

I will try not to be offended, but if you expect folks to walk in your shoes, you should try to walk in there's.

My 2yo child is a picky eater who cannot be force fed and doesn't speak. Now--thus far he is not on the spectrum.

But are you seriously suggesting or implying that it is improper parenting as to why we can't deal with our kids. Seriously!

Yes, I know it won't kill him.

But just so that things are fair and you understand that you may lose your hearing due to blood curdling screams since he doesn't know enough ASL yet to communicate, then things are hunky dory. AS far as we know he is not on the spectrum, but his inability to communicate is presently a huge impairment in our lives.

So much so that I was called a horrible parent in Walmart recently b/c he was telling me he wanted out of the cart after running off prior to that and I wouldn't let him have his way. To the onlooker, he appeared to be a "mouthy kid" as he was called by an old goat. But he was simply doing his "grunt language" which would have translated into "please mommy please let me down nooooooooooowwww". But sounded more like whining b/c folks can be clueless when it comes to his inability to communicate. If it was a tantrum, it would have been obvious--and painful to listen to.

I don't put down any family for dealing with a PA, but I wish they'd think twice before assuming that it is a parenting issue only when having to provide alternative.


"It's only two hours" is a cop-out to the severity of the issue when speaking of whether or not it is fair to other passengers to be told after they are told on a plane.

Whoa hoo! I completely agree! My son is the same way. He wants his pb and who am I to refuse?

Simply put:

My husband has a death reaction to bee stings....where ever we go, so does an epi-pen.

My son is severly allergic to penicillin, should I stop anyone from boarding this fall, IF they've had an antibiotic other than Zythromax?

No, I make sure my husband has what he needs and my son has what he needs. It is my responsiblity no one elses.

If my child were deathly allergic to peanuts (this is just me), I would only fly on planes that prohibit peanuts. Since none of them do, I know for a fact, we wouldn't fly, it would be a road trip - end of discussion.


Wanted to add, just this morning my son told me he wanted butter toast....translated means: toast w/ peanut butter for breakfast.

 

[lil mermaid]

There other airlines that don't serve peanuts. Honestly, if my child had a severe peanut allergy, I would choose another airline, no matter how many frequent flyer miles it would cause me to lose. Of course you would still have peanut products that fellow passengers brought on, but you avoid getting on a plane right after dozens of people have been eating airline provided bags of peanuts.

That being said, the OP could have just politely asked to be reseated three rows away from the peanuts on the floor. With a copy of the airlines peanut policy in her hand, of course. Politely. Probably would have been met with a better reaction than demanding that the plane be cleaned before takeoff.

In no way do I think John Doe should have used the language he did, but I can understand why he was so frustrated.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

My son is severly allergic to penicillin, should I stop anyone from boarding this fall, IF they've had an antibiotic other than Zythromax?

Respectfully, and please correct me if I am wrong, but how would someone who has taken an antibiotic be able to give your son a reaction? I do not think that is the same as all the bags of peanuts open.

 

[TLHB70]

I think this is a case like anything else where one person has special needs.

You can't expect the world to stop and revolve around you and your specific problems.

I have two allergies that can cause me to stop breathing and die. Bees and Cats.

Do you know what it's like being deathly allergic to cats? Do you know what it's like to not be able to go to friends houses due to my allergies? Would I ever ask them to not have a cat because of me? No way.

I'm allergic to bees. I avoid BBQs and other fun outside stuff.

I'm allergic to cats. I can't go in peoples houses who have them and sometimes I get up and move on subways and busses if someone too close has cat hair on them.

I'm the one with the issue, I am the one who makes the adjustment because it's not worth the risk. It seems like common sense. I don't expect the world to revolve around my needs.

If you have a child who is that deathly allergic to peanuts that someone sitting near him on a plane could kill him, then whoa- that's a special need indeed. He should probably not even risk it. If he was my kid, sorry, but I would just not risk it and take him on a plane. Even if the airline doesn't serve peanuts, you aren't going to get every other person on the plane to not bring their own.

I have not read this entire thread. I started reading through it and this post stopped me. So forgive me if someone has already asked this and/or you have answered this.
I am allergic to animal fur or dander or something. I have never been to an allergy doctor. I just know that when I get around animals like cats, dogs, and horses, my eyes turn red and burn/itch and tear up/run, my nose gets stopped up, I sneeze like crazy, and I start breaking out in hives. I have to get away from the animals or I am miserable. About a month ago I was on a flight where a lady brought her dog. She did not keep the dog in a crate of any kind; it was on her lap. Thankfully this was a short flight ( a little over an hour) and I was many rows in front of her. I did sneeze a few times and my nose got sniffly, but I was not miserable. I made it through the flight with no problems. Just two weeks ago I was booked on a flight where a woman brought her cat in a crate to the gate. Now, this was a long flight (over 5 hours), and I have to admit that I got very nervous about that. The flight ended up being cancelled and we had to take another plane. The lady and her cat did not fly with us. I can't help but wonder what would I do if I had to sit next to her and her cat for over 5 hours. I would be a mess. I have since started keeping Benadrayl in my carry on. I had always carried it in my checked luggage before. I know that those people have the right to have their pets onboard. Of course, I would prefer that I didn't have to breathe the recirculated air with their animal hair/dander. It is not deadly to me like it is to you so I understand that there is nothing that I can do about it other than be prepared with Benadryl. I just get very miserable. What do you do in those situations, when pets fly on planes that you are on? Do the airlines make the pets go to cargo? What do you do?

 

[C.Ann]

Have those parents with children who have peanut allergies read the articles that have come out recently? If you google exposing children to small doses of allergens you will find all kinds of promising info on the horizon..

Here is just one link - there are many, many more (actual medical sites) available by googling..

http://www.peanutallergy.com/content/articles/research/new-therapy-may-knock-out-peanut-allergy

 

[dismom2]

As I said before, I have a child with a peanut allergy. I wasn't the one suggesting that other people not bring or eat peanut snacks on the plane.

My comment about parents and snacks had to do with the fact that there are many different kinds of snacks to choose from. Personally, I don't care if you bring peanut snacks for your child, but is that really the only snack in the world that your child will eat?

I have flown many times, and sat near screaming kids. Is it fun? No, but I usually assume that thier ears are hurting them. My ears can hurt a lot on a plane, so I can relate to the pain, and I don't blame the child if they are uncomfortable, or sick of sitting down, or whatever. Some issues can be helped, some not. And if someone's child is 'on the spectrum' and the parent has no control (to no fault of thier own), it's their choice whether to risk making all the other passengers uncomfortable, or not. In other words, sometimes we do have control over a situation, sometimes not. Every situation is different.

I was not catered to by my parents. Sometimes they said no and I had to do without something I wanted for the time being. But, I was not 'on the spectrum' or special needs....I do understand that makes a difference. I raised my kids the same way, from the time they were very young, so they don't throw a fit when they don't always get what they want right that minute. Patience is something I chose to teach my (non special needs) children, so I don't have to worry about them throwing fits over something as simple as not getting the exact snack they want at that exact time. This just makes all our lives easier.
That's the point I was trying to make. You can raise your children how you want. And if you have a special needs child, I do feel for you and realize things are not so cut and dry. My post wasn't directed towards you, personally. Each case is different.

By any means, I don't think that of everyone.

However if someone fails to notify folks ahead of time, I fail to see why they get shocked that they may be inconveniencing others and have the gall to tell me "it's only two hours--you'll live". To me that is an entitlement attitude and not constructive to the discussion or safe for their child.


These same parents would probably be PO'd at a screaming baby for 2 hours on the flight if the parent was unapologetic and said "it's only two hours, it won't kill you."

I've been given some excellent tips her on how to modify my travel kit the next time we fly.

But it is fare that we have a long way to go for PA peeps.

 

[dismom2]

Whoa hoo! I completely agree! My son is the same way. He wants his pb and who am I to refuse?
Simply put:

My husband has a death reaction to bee stings....where ever we go, so does an epi-pen.

My son is severly allergic to penicillin, should I stop anyone from boarding this fall, IF they've had an antibiotic other than Zythromax?No, I make sure my husband has what he needs and my son has what he needs. It is my responsiblity no one elses.

If my child were deathly allergic to peanuts (this is just me), I would only fly on planes that prohibit peanuts. Since none of them do, I know for a fact, we wouldn't fly, it would be a road trip - end of discussion.


Wanted to add, just this morning my son told me he wanted butter toast....translated means: toast w/ peanut butter for breakfast.

The first bolded part: just wow.

Second bolded part: I have a severe allergy to Penicillin, too. What you wrote makes no sense. It doesn't affect me if OTHER people ingest it.

 

[MushyMushy]

Whoa hoo! I completely agree! My son is the same way. He wants his pb and who am I to refuse?

Simply put:

My husband has a death reaction to bee stings....where ever we go, so does an epi-pen.

My son is severly allergic to penicillin, should I stop anyone from boarding this fall, IF they've had an antibiotic other than Zythromax?

No, I make sure my husband has what he needs and my son has what he needs. It is my responsiblity no one elses.

If my child were deathly allergic to peanuts (this is just me), I would only fly on planes that prohibit peanuts. Since none of them do, I know for a fact, we wouldn't fly, it would be a road trip - end of discussion.


Wanted to add, just this morning my son told me he wanted butter toast....translated means: toast w/ peanut butter for breakfast.

I just don't get it. So if your son only wanted chocolate cake, you couldn't refuse him chocolate cake? You're the parent, you say no. If having peanut butter puts the child next to him in danger, then he doesn't get peanut butter.

I'm not a big fan of peanut bans in schools, but I would have no problem telling my child "too bad" if they were going to be that picky about food.

 

[golfgal]

Have those parents with children who have peanut allergies read the articles that have come out recently? If you google exposing children to small doses of allergens you will find all kinds of promising info on the horizon..

Here is just one link - there are many, many more (actual medical sites) available by googling..

http://www.peanutallergy.com/content/articles/research/new-therapy-may-knock-out-peanut-allergy

This is what allergy shots do for people.

 

[goofyernmost]

If sometimes the public seems to react badly to demands made by people with allergies, let me tell you this story.

I once worked for a school district. In that school district there were three small elementary schools, grades K thru 5, one middle school, grades 6 thru 8 and one high school.

The school board was presented with this problem. The parents of a child that had an absolutely deadly form of peanut allergy demanded that their child be "mainstreamed" in the public school system. The demand listed the needs of the child to prevent possible death from exposure. The main thrust of that demand was that no one could even have peanut butter on their breath or have been anywhere near enough to peanuts or it's by products that would even have minor amounts of peanut particles on there person.

Spelled out, this meant that an entire elementary school (K thru 5) had to insure that no child would have brought peanuts or any peanut related article to school with them, have consumed any peanut related item previous to attending school that might have a lingering residue on their clothing or breath. You get the picture...literally hundreds of people were going to be requested to completely change their life style to accommodate this child.

Not only was this an unreasonable request, it was also an impossible request to enforce. The one thought that came immediately to my mind was the ages of the other children involved. They would be 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 year olds, forced to sacrifice for the benefit of one. The parents were unrelenting. Either make this happen or we will sue. After much thought and legal council it was decided that they could not control this situation to the degree that was demanded and therefore denied the request. The parents sued and lost.

This brought to mind another question...what kind of parents would put their child in that kind of obvious danger just to prove a point. If their child had been allowed to enter that school and one forgetful 5 year old had peanut butter on his/her toast that morning and the other child died from it, would the parents be lost in grief or talking with lawyers about how much of a cash cow this could be?

I have stated before in other threads that, I am not responsible for the disabilities of others. I will take reasonable steps to help out but to expect a person or organization to be able to control the actions of others completely is not just incredibly self involved but also stupid.

Your problems are your problems. You take whatever steps you can to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. That may mean finding an airline that doesn't serve peanuts (that btw, wouldn't stop a passenger from having brought something peanut related along) or find an alternative way of travel. The world does not owe anyone anything that is either unreasonable or burdensome. A disability wouldn't be a disability if it didn't disable.

 

[Disney Doll]

It isn't the right to eat peanuts per se I am fighting for. It is the fact that I should be free to choose what I eat and what I feed my children. Making everyone on a plane or everyone in a class or everyone at a camp change what they want to consume for the benefit of one person is something I am not willing to do. I find the restriction on choice regardless of whether it is a choice of religion or choice of food to be equally appalling.

I have no problem moving to another section of the plane of having my child eat at a different table, but I do have a problem with the exception dictating the rule. I won't tell anyone else they should feel the same obligation to their rights as I do. I know I am not wrong for fighting for mine, regardless of how unimportant they may seem to someone else.

You know what firedancer, MY right to eat what I want when I want isn't as important to me as the health of another person.

So I'm glad you won't tell me to have the same obligation to my rights as you do to yours because frankly, your position on this issue strikes me as ludricous. Food just isn't that important to me, and I don't particularly see what is, essentially, a minor issue of having to not eat a certain food for a couple of hours, as hill to die on in the battle for protecting my rights.

 

[Took]

If sometimes the public seems to react badly to demands made by people with allergies, let me tell you this story.

I once worked for a school district. In that school district there were three small elementary schools, grades K thru 5, one middle school, grades 6 thru 8 and one high school.

The school board was presented with this problem. The parents of a child that had an absolutely deadly form of peanut allergy demanded that their child be "mainstreamed" in the public school system. The demand listed the needs of the child to prevent possible death from exposure. The main thrust of that demand was that no one could even have peanut butter on their breath or have been anywhere near enough to peanuts or it's by products that would even have minor amounts of peanut particles on there person.

Spelled out, this meant that an entire elementary school (K thru 5) had to insure that no child would have brought peanuts or any peanut related article to school with them, have consumed any peanut related item previous to attending school that might have a lingering residue on their clothing or breath. You get the picture...literally hundreds of people were going to be requested to completely change their life style to accommodate this child.

Not only was this an unreasonable request, it was also an impossible request to enforce. The one thought that came immediately to my mind was the ages of the other children involved. They would be 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 year olds, forced to sacrifice for the benefit of one. The parents were unrelenting. Either make this happen or we will sue. After much thought and legal council it was decided that they could not control this situation to the degree that was demanded and therefore denied the request. The parents sued and lost.

This brought to mind another question...what kind of parents would put their child in that kind of obvious danger just to prove a point. If their child had been allowed to enter that school and one forgetful 5 year old had peanut butter on his/her toast that morning and the other child died from it, would the parents be lost in grief or talking with lawyers about how much of a cash cow this could be?

I have stated before in other threads that, I am not responsible for the disabilities of others. I will take reasonable steps to help out but to expect a person or organization to be able to control the actions of others completely is not just incredibly self involved but also stupid.

Your problems are your problems. You take whatever steps you can to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. That may mean finding an airline that doesn't serve peanuts (that btw, wouldn't stop a passenger from having brought something peanut related along) or find an alternative way of travel. The world does not owe anyone anything that is either unreasonable or burdensome. A disability wouldn't be a disability if it didn't disable.

An interesting story. I agree that if my child had a deadly allergy as the child did here, I would NOT be sending him or her to public school or "insisting on my rights." I would be more concerned about his or her safety.

took

 

[Disney Doll]

No, but people with small cats or small dogs can travel with them in the cabin provided they are in a carrier in which case that person would be SOL and not abel to ride the plane. If a passenger already secured permission to travel with the cat in the cabin, it would not be right to deny that permission after the fact. Rather, the person you quoted would likely be transferred to a later flight.



Of interesting note--I was with friends last night and one of them works for DCL at the Port. We were chatting about the Disney summer cruises and meeting the celebs. Then out of the blue she brought up a passenger who was checking her daughter in the kids club. The mom asked my friend if she could guarantee that absolutely no dogs would be on the ship. Her daughteer is deathly allergic.

They had traveled on another cruise line and asked the same question and they were told no at check in--only that the ship forgot about service dogs. Her daughter had to be medi-vac'd off the boat due to a reaction.

My friend said she could see if there were any service dogs listed and it ended up that there were not so the family could take the cruise.

In a case like that--no entity can legally deny a service dog boarding over this child's allergy. I had asked if they could have notified them in advance (not sure if she did or not)--but they legally cannot prevent a dog boarding over this child's life threatening allergy.

So no--it is not fair to use the example "Can't everyone give it up for a few hours"--there are some cases where legally--they can't...like service dogs.

And the family who had packed lunches and were not notified, then her children couldn't eat and one got sick.

It is important to note--I'm not sure--someone feel free to correct me, if gel ice packs are even allowed through security anymore.

I used to pack a cooler of food--so my options would increase so we wouldn't have to pack peanuts. But with no refridgeration, the options are much smaller for what you could bring. (I.e. my son would eat eggs or chicken nuggest, but with no way to refridgerate it, I can't bring it from home).

Just some other thoughts. PA isn't the only lethal allergy out there (or at least the only allergy that requires medical intervention to stop.)

I found the dog story to be interesting--and in that case, I would feel sad fro the family but that would have rightfully had to cancel their cruise at the literal last second had there been even one dog on board.

If I had a child who was deathly allergic to anything, I would make sure that any activity we participate din as a family would be aware of this.

The Mom asking when she was checking the child in to the kids club was a bit late in the game, don't you think? I would have asked when I booked my cruise. I would have called a week before the cruise. I would have called the day before the cruise and I would have asked before I got on to the ship, not once I was on the ship and checking in to the kids club.

The OP in our peanut scenario posted that she did all the right things, let the airline know, was aware of the peanut buffer zone etc. From my perpsective from reading her posts, her issue is less that there were peanuts around and more the behavior of that staff person with regard to to the peanut thing, when she requested that the area around her seat be cleared of peanut products, as the airline's protocol says they will do.

I do agree with those who indicate that in the future she should consider flying only peanut-free airlines, but, by the same token, if most of us had read that they will make a peanut-free buffer zone (which would have been effective for the OP's situation since her child wasn't severely peanut allergic) AND we had frequent flyer points, would we be so quick to discount flying on that airline when their policy stated that they would make a reasonable accomodation for us???

If I had a mild/moderate peanut allergy, and the airline I was flying had a "protocol" for addressing my peanut allergy & I informed them ahead of time that they needed to activate their protocol, I would expect that to be communicated to the appropriate people and handled as per their policy. I would certainly not expect to have an airline/airport employee verbally harass me while doing so.

 

[Christine]

An interesting story. I agree that if my child had a deadly allergy as the child did here, I would NOT be sending him or her to public school or "insisting on my rights." I would be more concerned about his or her safety.

took

Most parents do not behave or demand in this way, I agree. We often hear these types of stories in the media because they are sensationalized, but most parents don't make impossible demands.

 

[lillygator]

no way would I be that careless of a parent if my child were that allergic to try and mainstream into school as well as force others at the sake of one.

 

[Disney Doll]

See bolded

That's still a nut and for many folks (as I have been informed on this thread) still an issue.

For a diabetic that needs PB crackers per doctors orders in the event of a sudden drop--it could be a matter of life and death (and an ADA issue) if he were expressly prohibited from consuming them. It quite likely is illegal.

Airlines have lots of luxuries that they have chosen to drop in the name of the almighty dollar while still not having a clue of how to turn a profit despite all their drops.

Air travel was much more fun when they had hot towel service. It was also a lot more ex*****ve. Are you willing to give up a $69 flight to Florida and pay $300 to have a meal and a hot towel? But I digress.

The lack of this "luxury" is at the choosing of the airline--so they have a few options, change their offerings or figure out some way around the peanut issue by obligating pre-notification in order to better serve all passengers. Really, probably the easiest thing for the airlines to do is to make every flight peanut free.This isn't an all or nothing thing. It's about making a life threatening situation easy on everyone.

I can't help that my sons food choices are limited--but now that someone reminded me that I can use frozen fruit as a make-shift ice pack -- he can live on cheese the whole flight if necessary. But forcing my 2yo son to eat against his will is like trying to force feed a cat. IMPOSSIBLE. My parents always went by the old adage "When she gets hungry enough, she'll eat" when I was being "particular" about food. They were usually right.
My son will even spit out his beloved PB if he isn't in the mood for it and we insist he eat it.

As for the peanuts--when I am obligated for whatever reason to read all labels to avoid peanuts, it becomes EXTREMELY difficult to find peanut free products to take along when you are not yourself peanut free. Though I did just spot check my cabinet for fun and found a number of things. But there is a million other things that aren't "nut flavored" but have nuts hidden in them and it is very easy for a non-PA person to quite easily miss that.

It isn't about turning a 747 instead the floor of Texas Roadhouse.

Noone wants anyone's child to die by accident or on purpose.

But as with any disability--there is personal accountability to take proper measures to notify people so that everyone will know and can plan accordingly. If a PD/PDA person or guardian is unable to do that, then they shouldn't be shocked when folks cannot comply as though the other people were the ones that failed to plan.

Notifying Flight crew on the jetway as a first notification is completely 100% unacceptable for everyone including the child with the PA/PDA.

OP didn't do that and numerous folks here didn't do that--though one did post that she keeps her sons PA private.

But it shouldn't be surprising that there are people out there who do not disclose the information to people they should be notifying. It's almost as though they feel entitled to the world stopping on their behalf due to ADA or something. But ADA clearly states REASONABLE accomodations and it is unreasonable to be selfish and withhold valuable life threatening information until the last minute. They then shouldn't be shocked at someone's unwillingness or inability to comply nor should they guilt trip anyone with "surely you can put up with two hours without a peanut." It is disrespectful and rude. It goes back to the "failure to plan on your part, does not constitute an emergency on my part." They have the option of walking back up the jetway and return to the ticket counter and have their flight changed.

No I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed on any flight--but they aren't the Queen of Sheba, their destination will still be there when they get their later and sooner or later they will learn that failure to properly notify people and plan for their kids PA/PDA is what made them late.

The airline does have the luxury of doing that. Maybe...and maybe the "Americans with Disabilities Act" would prevent them from doing so. I'm not sure, but I am throwing it out there as a possibility.

 

[FireDancer]

You know what firedancer, MY right to eat what I want when I want isn't as important to me as the health of another person.

So I'm glad you won't tell me to have the same obligation to my rights as you do to yours because frankly, your position on this issue strikes me as ludricous. Food just isn't that important to me, and I don't particularly see what is, essentially, a minor issue of having to not eat a certain food for a couple of hours, as hill to die on in the battle for protecting my rights.

Than you are free not to eat them just as I am free to eat them. You don't have to have the same obligation as I do and I never said you should. I have said all along that what I want is choice. You can choose to do what you want but I will also choose to do what I want.

The whole population of any place, whether a town or a school or a bus or a plane should not be forced to abstain from a perfectly legal product because one person can't have it. Making 100 or 200 or a whole school subject to a rule for the benefit of one or a small minority just strikes me as wrong. Someone else's allergy just shouldn't effect my or my children's life in any way.