In-laws are mad that we are inviting others to Christmas dinner. How to resolve this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

These things happen. The in-laws are free to bail, but they can't demand that the other guests be kicked out.

Sure, but the hosts don't get to pat themselves on the back for their wonderful hosting skills at their first Christmas in the new house.

Of course they can. They reacted well to their guests pitching a hissy fit and opened their home to a family in need. They weren't obligated to keep the guest list set in stone. It's their house.

Of course its not set in stone, they can simply tell the neighbors some other time just as easily because the family is upset. You can even the neighbor that and roll your eyes and throw up your hand like "in-laws, what can you do?". They aren't only in need that one day, maybe a New Years Day dinner instead.

[Anonymous]

There's no excuse for such rudeness!

That said, iis it possible they were anxious for health reasons? After multiple family members getting very sick from a last minute neighbor add-on last year and one ending up in the hospital, I'm extra cautious about more bodies around the table. I'd have to bite my tongue to not voice that out loud. It makes me sad to feel that way because my heart says they more the merrier but my anxiety says each additional person raises the risk of getting sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

Op is modeling great behavior to include a neighbor that could use some support over for a holiday meal. Maybe the inlaws were never taught this is lesson but can learn it now.

No one is born knowing to be charitable, kind, generous and giving. The is learned behavior and maybe the in laws can still learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

These things happen. The in-laws are free to bail, but they can't demand that the other guests be kicked out.

Sure, but the hosts don't get to pat themselves on the back for their wonderful hosting skills at their first Christmas in the new house.

Of course they can. They reacted well to their guests pitching a hissy fit and opened their home to a family in need. They weren't obligated to keep the guest list set in stone. It's their house.

Of course its not set in stone, they can simply tell the neighbors some other time just as easily because the family is upset. You can even the neighbor that and roll your eyes and throw up your hand like "in-laws, what can you do?". They aren't only in need that one day, maybe a New Years Day dinner instead.

Yes, that was one option. But OP chose a better option, one that doesn't involve disinviting anyone. It requires that OP buy extra food and find more chairs, and it requires that the in-laws suck it up like grown adults, perhaps in the spirit of the holiday they're gathering to celebrate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

Because there's no basis for that. Maybe they have secret knowledge that the neighbors are actually lizard people who require an invitation to Christmas dinner to finally implement their plans to take over the world!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

These things happen. The in-laws are free to bail, but they can't demand that the other guests be kicked out.

Sure, but the hosts don't get to pat themselves on the back for their wonderful hosting skills at their first Christmas in the new house.

Of course they can. They reacted well to their guests pitching a hissy fit and opened their home to a family in need. They weren't obligated to keep the guest list set in stone. It's their house.

Of course its not set in stone, they can simply tell the neighbors some other time just as easily because the family is upset. You can even the neighbor that and roll your eyes and throw up your hand like "in-laws, what can you do?". They aren't only in need that one day, maybe a New Years Day dinner instead.

Yes, that was one option. But OP chose a better option, one that doesn't involve disinviting anyone. It requires that OP buy extra food and find more chairs, and it requires that the in-laws suck it up like grown adults, perhaps in the spirit of the holiday they're gathering to celebrate.

OPs question is "how to resolve this" it doesn't sound like she has decided on how to handle. Maybe she will come back and explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

Because there's no basis for that. Maybe they have secret knowledge that the neighbors are actually lizard people who require an invitation to Christmas dinner to finally implement their plans to take over the world!!

They literally said they don't want to eat with a bunch of strangers. That was the reason. Some people like to keep to themselves. OPs husband should be figuring this out, he knows what his people are like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

Because there's no basis for that. Maybe they have secret knowledge that the neighbors are actually lizard people who require an invitation to Christmas dinner to finally implement their plans to take over the world!!

They literally said they don't want to eat with a bunch of strangers. That was the reason. Some people like to keep to themselves. OPs husband should be figuring this out, he knows what his people are like.

That's a preference, not social anxiety or fear of germs. But I agree that OP's husband should be handling all communications with his parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

Because there's no basis for that. Maybe they have secret knowledge that the neighbors are actually lizard people who require an invitation to Christmas dinner to finally implement their plans to take over the world!!

They literally said they don't want to eat with a bunch of strangers. That was the reason. Some people like to keep to themselves. OPs husband should be figuring this out, he knows what his people are like.

That's a preference, not social anxiety or fear of germs. But I agree that OP's husband should be handling all communications with his parents.

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

Because there's no basis for that. Maybe they have secret knowledge that the neighbors are actually lizard people who require an invitation to Christmas dinner to finally implement their plans to take over the world!!

They literally said they don't want to eat with a bunch of strangers. That was the reason. Some people like to keep to themselves. OPs husband should be figuring this out, he knows what his people are like.

That's a preference, not social anxiety or fear of germs. But I agree that OP's husband should be handling all communications with his parents.

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

[Anonymous]

Ask your in laws- WWJD? I bet you baby Jesus would invite the neighbors.