On Reddit, a woman shared a family dilemma regarding her upcoming wedding, and internet users quickly turned against her.
The bride-to-be explained that she wanted an elegant ceremony and that she and her fiancé decided to rent a grand historic property.
Banned assistance dog
To preserve the venue’s historic nature, the couple imposed strict rules on their guests, including a ban on animals.
The issue? The bride’s sister suffers from severe anxiety and panic attacks. She relies on Max, her Golden Retriever assistance dog, to help her manage her condition.
Although the reception venue allows assistance dogs, the bride remains adamant, she does not want her sister’s dog at the wedding. "Max is very well-trained and well-behaved, but he is still a dog," she insisted.
Explaining her decision, she said she was "afraid that Max will cause problems or be a distraction" and added that she did not want "conflict with the event venue that could jeopardise the deposit or the entire reservation".
She suggested that her sister hire a dog sitter to look after Max as a compromise. However, her sister refused, arguing that she could have an anxiety attack at any moment and needed Max by her side.
A family crisis
Max’s exclusion has not only created tension between the sisters but has also angered their parents. "My parents are furious and think I’m heartless. They said I should be willing to do anything to ensure my sister can be there on my big day," the bride admitted.
Internet users overwhelmingly sided with the sister. Some even speculated that the bride was more concerned about being upstaged than about the dog itself.
"An assistance dog is not a pet; it is essential to her well-being, and excluding it sends a rather cold message. Would you rather have a picture-perfect venue or your own sister at your wedding?" one user asked.
What do you think?
