AITA for refusing to invite my obese cousin to my destination wedding because she’ll need two plane seats and hike?

Alright, folks, buckle up because today's AITA story is a tricky one that delves into family dynamics, body image, finances, and the ever-stressful world of wedding planning. Our original poster (OP) is planning their dream destination wedding, which sounds idyllic, but a significant logistical and financial hurdle has emerged regarding a specific family member.

Weddings often bring out the best, and sometimes the worst, in people. When you add a destination element, costs soar and travel becomes a major factor. OP is facing a dilemma that has them questioning their own actions, and honestly, it’s a situation many might struggle with. Let's dive into the specifics and see if you think OP is the a**hole here.

"AITA for refusing to invite my obese cousin to my destination wedding because she’ll need two plane seats and hike?"

This situation is a classic example of conflicting desires and practical realities colliding. On one hand, the couple has a clear vision for their wedding, complete with a specific destination and activities. They've also been transparent about guests covering their own travel, a common expectation for destination events. Their budget is limited, and they've chosen a venue that suits their preferences, even if it presents challenges for some.

However, family ties run deep, and excluding a close relative, especially for reasons stemming from their physical condition, is bound to cause hurt. The cousin's obesity isn't a choice in the same way choosing to hike isn't, and it brings with it financial and accessibility hurdles she can't easily overcome. From the mother's perspective, it looks like a deliberate exclusion, a lack of empathy, or even discrimination.

The financial aspect of the extra plane seat is significant. Asking guests to pay for travel is one thing, but asking one guest to pay double for an unavoidable physical need is another. While the couple isn't *obligated* to pay, their refusal to consider any financial assistance, or to compromise on the venue, highlights a rigidity that might be perceived as unkind, especially by those who value family inclusion above all else.

Ultimately, the core conflict lies in whose responsibility it is to accommodate. Is it the couple's to ensure all family members can attend their chosen event, even if it means sacrificing their vision or budget? Or is it the individual's responsibility to assess their own capabilities and costs, and respectfully decline if unsuitable? There’s no easy answer, as both sides have understandable points.

The Jury Weighs In: Is OP Hiking Up a Mountain of Selfishness or Standing Firm on Their Vision?

The comments section for this one was, as expected, a real mixed bag, reflecting the complexity of the issue. Many users landed squarely on 'NTA,' arguing that a couple's wedding vision and budget are paramount. They stressed that it's unfair to expect the couple to change their entire wedding or incur significant extra costs for one person, especially when the physical demands were clear from the start.

Conversely, a strong contingent felt OP was 'YTA,' or at least 'ESH.' These commenters often highlighted the callousness of excluding family due to a physical condition, suggesting that true family love would find a way to accommodate. Some pointed out that destination weddings inherently exclude many, but this felt particularly personal and could have been handled with more grace or willingness to compromise.

This story reminds us that even the most joyful events, like weddings, can bring out difficult ethical dilemmas. While the couple has a right to their vision, and their budget constraints are real, the emotional fallout of perceived exclusion is equally valid. There's no perfect answer, but open communication, empathy, and perhaps a willingness to find alternative ways to celebrate with excluded family members (a local reception, for example) can sometimes soften the blow, even if the destination wedding remains out of reach.