Is it rude not to cater for allergies/special diets?

I don't think it's rude at all it is that couple's day, and up to them what they want, if they can find something that everyone would agree on then OK, but I dont go to my brother in-laws house (Hindi), and expect them to set aside and make special food for me because I'm not used to the spice. I enjoy it, and if I dont like soemthing I dont eat it. so it is not rude at all she's having a wedding not running a business.

It's hilarious how everyone would be happy if you just make sure you provide a balanced meal of veggies, protein, and carbs. All you really have to do is tell the catering company that all vegetable options should be nut, meat, wheat, and dairy free and have 2-3 options. That is something that is basically standard at the weddings I have been to (and I photograph the for money, so I've been to more than my fair share).

Holy crap. I have several food allergies & I would NEVER expect a bride to p*ssy-foot around MY needs on HER wedding budget. I know what I can & cannot eat. There is ALWAYS a side dish that is edible. I eat what I can & leave the rest in group settings. My medical needs are my responsibility. It would be different if someone was having me over & specifically asking me what I can't eat, but when someone is looking to feed a group of 50-500 people, it's totally up to the individual to look out for themselves.

a person has the right to attend a wedding or not. eat or not. enjoy the company or just don't go.

NOPE,,,,,, if its your allergy or special diet, YOU take care of it.

This

If someone was in a wheel chair and there was a ramp to get to the table would you have the same attitude?

If you invite someone to share a meal/buffet to celebrate your occasion then the least you can do is make them comfortable and welcome?

Being in a wheelchair is a physical handicap, which means if there isn't a ramp or a way for them to get in there, then they physically can't come. But if you don't have food they like - they don't have to eat it. They'll still be there either way.

I think I would try to include a variety of foods, if possible, that there might be something for everyone. I went to a wedding once where the groom was allergic to sugar. The wedding cake was ordered with a sugar free top for the bride and groom, and the rest of the cake was supposed to be normal. Well, the whole cake ended up being sugar free, and it was fun at the reception watching the variety of ways people would taste and then dispose of their cake!

Humans would not be alive today if people in the past did not eat animals. It was an absolute necessity and presently our population is so large if everyone became a vegetarian the result would rampant food shortages and people would start to starve to death.

"Because we've always done it" or "because we built our society on it" or "because it's tradition" are not, alone, good reasons to do absolutely anything. You need something else; circumstances change. Western society was built on pillage, slavery, and rape, and no one suggests continuing those traditions.

You are factually incorrect regarding your statement that mass vegetarianism would cause rampant food shortages and starvation. Firstly, it's unrealistic that the entire world would go vegetarian overnight. Secondly, what exactly do you think farm animals eat? That specific grain may not be of a quality sellable to humans, but the space needed to grow crops to feed humans only is a lot less than to feed creatures consumed by humans.

You are correct in that appeals to tradition are not enough to justify anything especially when talking about your slavery example. The thing is I was not making an appeal to tradition. I was pointing out an actual physical necessity. I was never saying we should keep doing it because we have always done it. I was saying if we didn't do it in the past we would not have even made it to today. Eating meat was and is physically necessary.

I don't know where you are getting your numbers regarding the amount of food consumption we have in the this country but no I am not factually incorrect at all. Let me address your two criticisms in turn.

You said "Firstly it is unrealistic that the entire world would go vegetarian overnight." Ok so basically you are saying that as long as there are some people committing the immoral act of eating meat there will still be enough food to go around. Forgive me but isn't that just reinforcing my point? I never said the entire world I was only talking about our country but even if it were just a huge majority of people that felt eating meat was immoral it would be entirely impractical for that to happen and if it did we would run in to food shortages. Especially in parts of the country where the bulk of their fruits and vegetables are imported from other parts of the country. The demand for fruits and vegetables would cause prices to sky rocket. Basically the only reason that you are able to be a vegetarian is because there are some people who aren't vegetarians.

Your second point "Secondly, what exactly do you think farm animals eat? That specific grain may not be of a quality sellable to humans, but the space needed to grow crops to feed humans only is a lot less than to feed creatures consumed by humans." Well even if we didn't have everyone go vegetarian and we just had a large percentage of people do it. What do you think would happen with all of these livestock animals? Farmers don't raise them out of some sense of benevolence. The farmer needs that animal to go to auction or a butcher at some point. Well with the drastic reduction in the number of people eating these animals their prices would plummet.

Farmers would not continue to raise them as they would not be cost effective. So the most logical thing for these farmers to do would be to eat the livestock themselves. Because the livestock also has to be fed and taken care of right up to the point when they are butchered.

It would be very difficult if not impossible for farmers to be able to expand their fields and get their production shifted over to meet this rising demand for fruits and vegetables. The kicker is all of this could be avoided if only eating animals wasn't immoral. The only other way to look at it is that the world needs some immoral people like me so that it can afford the luxury of having some moral people like you.

How many people are attending? It may be impossible to cater to every last person. People with allergies should be offered safe food choices, people on a diet can suck it up and go for sensible portions.

This is a very interesting and relevant question. Whenever I entertain (houseparty, organized restaurant function, baby shower, etc) I tend to have some sort of simple, vegetarian choice somewhere, and am sparing with things with nuts. Those are relatively common situations these days. However, if you are on a super restrictive diet (which let's be honest, many times is elective), I am not going to have a veganlowsaltglutenfreelowfatreddyenumberthreekosher alternative menu. Eat before you attend so you will be comfortable picking through what's there. Come on people!

I don't think it's that difficult or more expensive to cater for allergies, etc.

Why can't a wedding have rice, salad, steamed vegetables, cheese platters, etc. for vegetarians and/or celiac guests? I particularly favour buffets for this...you can pick what you like or can eat. For celiac, you would have to avoid wheat contamination, so besides making dinner rolls available, you could avoid breaded foods and have clean roasted or grilled foods which are just as delicious, and anyone can eat them.