Disabled man snaps at friend's BF who compared vegetarianism to being in wheelchair.

Picking a place to go out to eat for an entire friend group can be a lesson in diplomacy.

Between everyone's cravings, dietary restrictions, physical ability, budget, and shifting moods, there are a lot of factors to take into place.

When you consider all the details that go into a dinner reservation, it's surprising anyone stays friends after a big night out.

To this point, the AITA subreddit is rife with situations where a dinner plan or party goes awry because of the above reasons.

In one popular post, a man asked if he was wrong for kicking out his friend's boyfriend after being excluded from the NYE dinner plans.

He wrote:

AITA for kicking my friend’s boyfriend out of my house after my friends planned a New Year’s gathering that I can’t attend?​​​​​​

Alright so maybe I am overreacting, but honestly, I’ve kind of reached a breaking point. I (M21) am disabled, full-time wheelchair user, and live in a fairly small college town with a couple friends.

My roommates and I are part of a larger friend group of 8 people, and I’d say we’re all pretty close. I really love my roommates, they’re great, but sometimes a little thick.

There’s one person in the large friend group, let’s call him Chris, who is dating a guy, let’s call him James. I really don’t like James for many reason, mostly petty ones to be honest. But another fact, James is vegetarian.

That’s not a problem in itself, but herein comes the issue. All of us planned on getting dinner on New Year’s Eve. Smallish college town, there are three main restaurants to choose from that are open in the nearby area.

One of them is a steakhouse, one of them is a Thai place, one of them is a sort of hippie plant-based place.

James immediately suggests the plant-based one. I give a veto, as it’s completely inaccessible, and give the alternative of ordering take-out from there and bringing it back to my place.

But we recently started fostering a cat, and one of our other friends is allergic to cats, so that’s also a no-go. None of the other friends are able to host a gathering for various reasons, so I suggest we go to the Thai place.

It’s a nice spot, and reasonably accessible. But apparently, James and Chris went to the Thai place last week for their anniversary, and don’t want to go back.

I then suggest the steakhouse, but of course, that is loudly shut down because James is a vegetarian.

Long story short, the group did a vote between the hippie place and the Thai place, not even including the steakhouse, and the plant-based place won.

I admitted that I was slightly frustrated with my roommates, who said that they can bring food back after. I said that that wasn’t the issue, but sure. So New Year’s Eve comes and they get back from dinner, and James and Chris also stop by.

At this point, it’s pretty late and I’m a couple drinks in, and I flat out tell James that I think it’s sh**ty that he suggested and then subsequently campaigned for a place that he knows that I can’t go to.

He said that it’s fair because I suggested the steakhouse, knowing he’s a vegetarian. I told him that it’s different, because he could have at the very least physically been present. He insisted that it’s the same.

I asked him to leave the apartment because I was I was tired of dealing with his bullsh*t. So he left, and my roommates think I overreacted. Maybe I did. What do y’all think?

People quickly shared their thoughts on the conflict.

einsteinGO wrote:

NTA. It isn’t the same.

They could f**king put up with eating at the same restaurant twice in seven days; you cannot change whether a restaurant is accessible.

Crafty-Return5815 wrote:

NTA. Him being vegetarian and you being physically unable to access the restaurant are completely different things. He could've had sides at the steakhouse, or they could've sucked it up and gotten Thai again.

They even could have brought food from the plant-based place to the apartment like you suggested. You gave plenty of options, and they specifically chose the one that directly excluded you.

Heraonolympia123 wrote:

As a vegetarian, if I was asked to choose between a place one of the group couldn’t physically access and somewhere I went last week for an anniversary, I’d choose the one from last week.

If I was asked to choose between the steak house and the vegan place one of the group couldn’t physically access, I’d choose the steak house and order fries or something.

I couldn’t happily munch down on my veggie plate knowing someone had to miss out due to a physical inability to access the premises. And anyone who voted that way is not a great friend. NTA.

namesaretoohardforme wrote:

NTA. Who the hell cares that they went to the Thai place last week? They can go again. It's a small college town! Not like there's a whole range of options here.

The other people who also voted for the vegetarian place share some blame too. Side note: as long as you keep calling it a hippie place, you're never going to win people over.

SquishyThingy1 wrote:

NTA - James' diet is his choice, you being disabled is not. He could have gotten a salad at the steakhouse, or he and Chris could have sucked it up and gone to the Thai place once more.

They literally decided that eating at the same restaurant twice in two weeks was worse than having you around. Chris and James majorly suck, but your other friends aren't much better for going along with this.

Also, one or two people could have decided to skip the restaurant and stay with you. These people aren't good friends.

Sadly, it sounds like OP could use some new friends, since none of them are doing the bare minimum of taking his disability into consideration.