Vegan Wedding--Rude? Experiences?

I didn't read all the comments but, if you believe that a couple should provide at least one vegan option at their wedding, then to also say that you don't think a meat option should be provided at another couples wedding is kind of hypocritical, IMO. I have a lot of food allergies & mostly to vegetables & fruits. Therefore, I don't have many options when it comes to vegetarian. It's not that I don't like these things, it's that I swell up & end up in the hospital when I eat them. Because of that, and because it's expected that a couple who does eat meat provide a vegetarian option at their wedding, I think it's rude to not expect a vegetarian couple to provide at least one meat option.

I didn't say anything about it being preachy. I never said anything against veganism in general. Like I stated, there have been multiple posts about vegan catering either done well or done poorly. If majority of their guests are not familiar with this cuisine and it is not done properly, yes, guests will be hungry. It sounds an awful lot like you're stretching for a reason to call me judgmental.

@Elizabeth, maybe that's true in your household. I know lots of Muslims who have no problem serving alcohol. It isn't against their religious beliefs.

I totally disagree Elizabeth. I see your point, but I disagree with it. I think that people are being overly judgmental about having vegan food. It's food. The preachiness is in the eye of the beholder i.e. the guest.

No food/self-catering = dry wedding to me. I also don't think that's an inconsistent POV.

The hypocrisy here lies in the fact that meat eaters and other non-vegan diets are told it's rude to NOT provide a vegan option for guests, yet the vegans can say "screw it" to providing options and just have whatever they want.

"You can try different foods. You're not two." Okay, well how about the vegans at my wedding try meat because they're not two either and that's all I'm serving? You see the problem with that argument?

I think it's rude not to have one meat or non-vegan option, because it's only reciprocal for them to do that when a vegan option is provided for them at places. And it's really not that difficult to allow people a choice. I personally need a protein at dinner, in the form of chicken or steak. That's my lifestyle choice, it should be respected just like vegans' choices are.

I don't think so, Kim. I think you're pre-judging the value of the meal being offered simply because it's vegan, as are many others. Any catering can be done well or poorly, not just vegan. And not all vegan food is tofu.

I never said all vegan food is tofu. You are the one making assumptions, not me.

Van Pear, nope, the logic doesn't work.

I just don't understand how as someone who served meat at my reception that I had to also provide a vegetarian option. A plate had to be made for the vegan and another for the guest who was gluten free(non allergy).

Doesn't it seem hypocritical to expect people to meet their demands and yet don't offer the same to their guests?

I think its totally rude. Everyone is entitled to their own lifestyle choices, but to impose them on other people seems pretty thoughtless. I would just eat beforehand.

AL are you going to argue against everyone telling you the religious objection thing with anecdotal evidence from your own circle? Because there's tons written about religious objections to serving alcohol. A simple google search will help you find a very recent case of a flight attendant being fired for refusing to serve alcohol due to religious beliefs. It's a thing.

Jacks, we'll have to agree to disagree. Just as vegan food is food (and yes, I've tried it numerous times and I even liked quite a few dishes), drinks are drinks. Eliminating meat and dairy is no better than eliminating alcohol, so yes, I do think it's inconsistent and I still say the reception is for your guests, so if you choose to have one, you need host the foods THEY would prefer, not the ones you think they should have.

I don't know if it has been said already but, by serving alcohol, no animals are dying. A chicken or beef dish requires a life. If someone is ethically opposed to the use of animals in food, why would you expect them to provide it as an option.

Arguing alcohol and veganism in the same breath is moot.

@jacks - couldn't the same then be said of not eating a meal that contains meat. That its being prejudged on the basis of containing meat? The fact of the matter is, it's expected that a meat eating couple also provide a vegan I option. Therefore, a vegan couple should be held to the same standard, period. You can't have it both ways. ETA - spelling

The couple in question are a bride and groom, so that's correct to say. They did provide many options, for which I am glad!

I was just minorly annoyed that we are spending extra money to provide plenty of options for them at both cocktail hour and the main course (we had to work with the chef off-menu because they had no vegan options), when they would only provide vegan options at their wedding.

Van Pear, you're argument is illogical. Just because you're not getting your personal first choice of food doesn't mean that the hosts are being rude.

It's like saying that beer and wine is not good, you need Moet champagne or it's rude.

Bethyonce, some people do believe that by serving alcohol, they are causing people to sin, thereby condemning them to hell as their afterlife. Those that are religiously against alcohol are just as ethically opposed to alcohol as vegans are to animal products.

@Bethyonce - I'm sorry but, plants are alive too, are they not?

If a vegetarian is not offered an option to have a vegetarian meal then they don't eat.

No food = dry wedding. Rude.

An omnivore being offered a vegan meal, they still eat. Not rude.

@ Mrs Sitzman: That is a totally disingenuous comparison. Plants aren't sentient.

Bethyonce some people are morally opposed to serving alcohol as they find it to be a drug. Why is their position any less valid than those who don't want to harm animals?