AITAH for canceling a reservation that my sister made for 12 people at an expense steakhouse with the expectation for my vegetarian wife and I to pay for everyone.
The original poster (OP) recounted a situation involving a reservation made by their sister for a large group dinner at a Brazilian steakhouse for twelve people.
This reservation came with an expectation that the OP and their vegetarian wife would cover the entire cost for the group.
The OP privately addressed the issue with the sister, noting that the restaurant choice excluded their wife, who has been vegetarian for twenty years, from enjoying the main offerings.
The sister dismissed this concern, suggesting the wife should just eat a salad to 'take one for the team' and save the OP a small amount.
The OP ultimately cancelled the expensive reservation and instead arranged for catered food at home that everyone could eat, leading to public conflict.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
No spam, unsubscribe anytime. Privacy Policy
The Comments Section Came Alive:
Support, sarcasm, and strong words — the replies covered it all. This one definitely got people talking.
The central conflict revolves around the OP's decision to prioritize their wife's dietary needs and financial boundaries over the sister's chosen venue and expectation that the OP would subsidize the entire group's meal.
The OP felt unsupported in advocating for their wife, leading them to take unilateral action to resolve the situation.
The core question is whether the OP was justified in canceling the reservation and arranging an alternative meal when faced with a potentially expensive outing that excluded his wife and demanded he pay for others, or if this response was an overreaction to the sister's poor suggestion.
Should the OP have insisted on a compromise location or was catering the only reasonable choice given the circumstances?