Asking guests to walk between ceremony and reception

[Anonymous]

I’m the person 21:27 responded to.

If we (the groom) paid for parking for everyone at the church, why do you consider it rude that we didn’t run a bus to the hotel/reception?

It seems a bit self centered that you wish to direct the transportation when parking is a paid option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the person 21:27 responded to.

If we (the groom) paid for parking for everyone at the church, why do you consider it rude that we didn’t run a bus to the hotel/reception?

It seems a bit self centered that you wish to direct the transportation when parking is a paid option?

"Parking is a paid option" - except it is not. An "option" would be if you allowed guests to have the option of parking at the church and also parking at the reception. But it sounds like that option has been taken away from the guests. The guests have no choice. Guests are not worried about paying for parking - the paying is not the concern. Having the option to park at both the ceremony and also the place of reception should be the option. People are complaining because you are not giving them options, and you are taking away their options, and OP insinuated that there will be no trolley or party bus or anything, except for the elderly, which is totally not fair. Yes, the elderly should have transportation - but also ALL guests should have that option. How many elderly are there? It will look weird if there are only one or two or three, and they get their own transportation, while the remainder (majority) of the guests get nothing. You are telling the guests that they don't matter to you - so why invite them, at all?

No one wants to trek from place to place in heels. Even when 20 or 30 somethings go out for the evening, they park nearby. They pay to park nearby, or get dropped off at the door because it is important to do so. No one I know chooses to get dropped off "10 minutes" (which is probably at least twice that) away, when they are dressed up. Even going to the office, one chooses the closest spot to the door. None of this makes sense. It's a wedding, not a ho-down or a parade. A wedding.

The bride and groom should not be dismissing their guests like that. What else are they dismissing? I mean think about it, how much are you paying for the dress? Couldn't you pay a fraction of that amount for transportation, given the circumstances? Because that is how people are going to see the situation.

I have a family member with ODD, and this reminds me of them. Nothing others want is important, as long as that family member is taken care of. People who raise a concern are dismissed. But OP specifically asked, and does not like the answer, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible idea. Walking in heals on city streets increases the chances of twisted ankles. Plus, it will damage nice and pricey shoes and I would be ticked.

Oh good grief. As if no one has ever walked in the city in heels!

It is a wedding, and you know that it is an issue, you just want to be a jerk about it. Which is fine, but you should really own it, at this point. You kind of sound like a selfish jerk, OP.

I wrote that and I am not the OP. My god, get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the person 21:27 responded to.

If we (the groom) paid for parking for everyone at the church, why do you consider it rude that we didn’t run a bus to the hotel/reception?

It seems a bit self centered that you wish to direct the transportation when parking is a paid option?

"Parking is a paid option" - except it is not. An "option" would be if you allowed guests to have the option of parking at the church and also parking at the reception. But it sounds like that option has been taken away from the guests. The guests have no choice. Guests are not worried about paying for parking - the paying is not the concern. Having the option to park at both the ceremony and also the place of reception should be the option. People are complaining because you are not giving them options, and you are taking away their options, and OP insinuated that there will be no trolley or party bus or anything, except for the elderly, which is totally not fair. Yes, the elderly should have transportation - but also ALL guests should have that option. How many elderly are there? It will look weird if there are only one or two or three, and they get their own transportation, while the remainder (majority) of the guests get nothing. You are telling the guests that they don't matter to you - so why invite them, at all?

No one wants to trek from place to place in heels. Even when 20 or 30 somethings go out for the evening, they park nearby. They pay to park nearby, or get dropped off at the door because it is important to do so. No one I know chooses to get dropped off "10 minutes" (which is probably at least twice that) away, when they are dressed up. Even going to the office, one chooses the closest spot to the door. None of this makes sense. It's a wedding, not a ho-down or a parade. A wedding.

The bride and groom should not be dismissing their guests like that. What else are they dismissing? I mean think about it, how much are you paying for the dress? Couldn't you pay a fraction of that amount for transportation, given the circumstances? Because that is how people are going to see the situation.

I have a family member with ODD, and this reminds me of them. Nothing others want is important, as long as that family member is taken care of. People who raise a concern are dismissed. But OP specifically asked, and does not like the answer, apparently.

Holy projection, Batman.

I can see why the OP never came back. All y’all are some crazy mofos.

[Anonymous]

How has this thread been going on so long? Can someone summarize?