The balancing act of the Supreme Court

I read an interesting opinion article in today's National post which I wish to share with you. It suggested that the balance between Supreme Court rulings and the idea of social sensitivity have been tipped on the scales of justice.

As of last year, the Supreme Court of Canada has introduced the "acessible transport" law, which states that obese people, who cannot fit within the normal chair constraints of a transporation vehicle, should be allowed a second seat at no extra cost. This past week, an airlined appealed this law to the courts, stating that this puts the company in a financial dilemma. Who's going to be the one to pay for the lost seats?

The journalist pointed out that those who are too tall do not receive special treatment as part of his rebuttle. Therefore alluding to the idea that why should obese people be an exception? I understand both sides of this argument, but I would have to agree with his statement. When does it become too much?

Precedents set a tone for many laws of the future, and this case has the ability to take the idea of social sensitivy to an extreme. It is a delicate topic to touch on, and as public relations professionals we are told to be aware of cultural differences. I guess my thought for this evening, is how do we learn to be sensitive without discriminating against or leaving anyone out? Is it even logically possible? Penny for your thoughts?

For the full article visit: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=983151