One Man's Discriminatin' is a Another Man's Common Sense

Back in college when I worked the guest service desk at Target, I once had an angry, rotund woman roll up to my desk to pick a bone. She was spitting nails. You see, when you sign up for a Target credit card, Target gives you 10% off your purchases in the store that day and also gives you 10% off your first purchase on target.com. My customer didn't like that. From her angry, fat mouth she ejected these remarkable words, "I don't have a computer. So this program dis-crim-i-nates against me!" sounding out each syllable in the word "discriminates" as though she was being--oh, I don't know--denied a promotion, denied a marriage license, tortured at Buchenwald?

I stood there in shock, unsure what to say. I was trying to connect the logic in my mind: this one woman in central Pennsylvania did not have a computer; therefore, a 10% online coupon discriminated against her. And, boy, was she was angry! I wanted to gently place her chubby little hands in mine and say, "What a sad, dark place it must be inside that mind of yours." To this day, I wish I had.

I thought of this angry little creature this week when I read that United--like many other airlines already do--will now begin charging overweight people for two seats if they spill into the seat next to them. The policy was instituted after United received over 700 complaints about obese passengers intruding on the space of the person next to them--sometimes to the point of physical pain. A non-scientific poll shows 67% in favor of the policy and 33% against. I suspect the 33% think there's some discriminatin' going on. As my Target lady might have surmised, "If I don't have a computer, no one can have an online coupon! Likewise, if I'm so large that I take up more space than is reasonably allotted, it must be discrimination! Must be!"

But, of course, the other side of the coin that these me-me-me types are missing is that the person whose seat is half taken over by the large passenger isn't getting the full seat that he or she paid for. You buy one, you get one. You need more? You pay more. Seems pretty simple to me.

Obesity, per se, is not a protected class under anti-discrimination statutes in the United States. If you have a valid medical condition that results in your being overweight, then that's a different story. In a perfect world, perhaps we could charge only the lazy fat people for two seats, and allow a doctor's note from medically fat people to serve as proof that the person need only pay for one.

The overweight airline passenger saga is just another variation of the age old problem the world's alleged first children asked: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Should we pay for Octomom's eight babies? What about the 16 year-old girl who needs an abortion? (Or do we force her to have the kid and then spend 18 years' worth of taxpayer dollars to raise it?) Do we help people refinance their mortgages? All people? Just the ones who didn't "buy more house than they could reasonably afford"? Is letting gay people get married (and therefore getting tax breaks only married couples can claim) a way of jacking up the national debt due to decreased tax revenues or is it a matter of equality to give them what other couples already have?

Do religion and morality shed light on the answers to these questions? Should they? And perhaps most importantly, is morality the same thing as a perceived sense of fairness?

It's hard to draw lines in these questions. Your answer probably depends on your level of compassion, socio-economic status, political affiliation, and whether you think a person "deserves" their life circumstances. It also depends on how strongly you believe people can change and whether you think you've gotten what you deserve thus far in life.

How many people are opposed to the idea of government-sponsored needle exchange programs for junkies? "They shouldn't have done drugs in the first place!" Right? But what if the program helped keep those people from dying, from contracting HIV, or even helped them get into treatment so they could become productive, taxpaying members of society?

Personally, when I pay for one full seat, I want one full seat. Maybe I don't feel too compassionate for large people. When I hear tax dollars are being spent for needle exchange programs or to give some reckless girl her fifth abortion, I cringe, but I wonder if it's better than the alternative. When I hear that gay couples pay a ton more in taxes because of their inability to get married, I get angry at the inconsistency of the tax code.

What's fair? What do I owe you? What do you owe me? There are--and perhaps never have been--any easy answers. Only questions. Jesus said, "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor." Luke 18:22. Once we recognize that that's absolutely nuts, the next question must be: "Well, just have much should I give? What do I really owe to the junkie, the homo down the street, the fat airline passenger taking up half my seat?"

Cain asked, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The only real answer we have for him is the same answer we've always had: sometimes. But not when you're in my damn seat. Buy two seats. And put down the Twinkie.