Only if the kids agree to two conditions will family weddings be paid for: 'I'm a jerk'.

The parent on Reddit has stated that they will pay for their children's weddings only if certain conditions are met. However, their youngest child has refused to meet these conditions, resulting in payment being withheld.

Over 1,300 people have commented on the piece by the parent in just a few hours since it was posted, resulting in nearly 4,000 reactions to date.

The parent posed a question on social media asking if they were the asshole for not paying for their youngest's wedding, despite having paid for their oldest's, because the youngest did not meet their two conditions.

I am willing to pay for my children's weddings if they adhere to two conditions.

The person specified that the venue must be wheelchair accessible and all family members must be invited, except for extreme reasons. Any additional requirements are acceptable, and they will cover the wedding expenses.

The daughter who is to be married is facing an issue.

My elder's wedding cost approximately $40K, and I covered the entire expense.

"Last week she informed me she found her venue and is asking for the down payment for it."

I informed my youngest daughter of the wedding conditions when she got engaged.

The writer on Reddit stated that the person they were communicating with had discovered their venue and was requesting payment for it. The venue was situated in the mountains, and it was not accessible for individuals in wheelchairs.

The paths are dirt, the doors are not big enough, and there are a ton of stairs. I contacted the venue, and they have almost nothing for people with disabilities.

The argument began when the parent informed their daughter that they would not be paying for the event since the venue violated the first condition.

"We have multiple family members who use a wheelchair."

She believes I am a jerk and favoritism, but I reminded her of the conditions for payment and she didn't adhere to them.

The parent added an edit to the post, stating that there are multiple family members who use a wheelchair, hence the wheelchair rule.

The Reddit poster was contacted by Planet Chronicle Digital for additional information and updates.

Scores of writers weighed in on the situation in the meantime.

One commenter in the top "upvoted" post stated, "It's clear that someone requires access. Are you all just ableist?"

If you don't pay, it's fair. If she chooses that location and pays herself, it's also fair. Would you understand?

The commenter responded with "That's okay, it saves me money. I won't support anything that excludes family."

The original poster added, "I will not fund any part of a wedding that excludes people."

Another commenter posed a series of questions to the original poster:

• "Did you inquire about her plan for family members who couldn't attend due to inaccessibility?"
• "Would she have skipped rule 2 and not invited these people if she had planned it?"
• "After learning where the venue was, did she hope they wouldn't come?"
• "Does she not have a close relationship with these people, which means she doesn't care if they come?"
• "If these rules apply to her siblings and have not been broken for them, why does she think you're playing favorites? Does she not know her sibling held to the rules and that's why their wedding was paid for?"

In response, the original poster stated, "She lacked a response."

Another person responded to the original post, stating that the writer was clear with their conditions, but their daughter did not follow them. The writer is not playing favorites, and the conditions placed on the gift are reasonable. The gift is generous, and the conditions are within the ordinary range, so there is nothing to complain about.

On the other hand, I believe your daughter is being highly disrespectful. While I understand that she may have issues with the second condition, as it's not uncommon to not want people you only interacted with once or twice in your life at your wedding, the real issue lies with the first condition.

"She appears to be intentionally excluding individuals with disabilities, which is truly repulsive."

For more Lifestyle articles, visit planetchronicle.net/lifestyle.