Do people start taking crazy pills when they get engaged?

Maggie0829

flutterbride2b said:

Actually, the above isn't against etiquette or tacky. In some churches, like mine, you cannot have a private ceremony. Anyone is welcome to attend, as it is a religious function in a church. If a homeless person, or a stranger, or anyone, wants to attend a church service, you don't kick them out. Same for a wedding. And a notice of the upcoming ceremony will be printed in the bulletin (whether I want it to or not) and probably announced from the pulpit (again, this isn't a matter of choice, it's just what's done in many churches).   However, since the attendees are not invited, and since there's no way to know how many will attend, it is not necessary to invite them to a reception.  Many couples hold an "open" cake and punch reception for everyone who attended the ceremony. Some of the couples follow that with a reception for the guests who were invited to attend the wedding. That's not a tiered reception, because you are still hosting your invited guests. 

((I know I can't speak for all churches about mandatory open ceremonies, but I'm fairly sure it's the norm. Also, I know I'll probably get some disagreement about it being tacky or not, but whatever.))

I would understand if it was the requirement that it be posted as an announcement, but they're not doing it because they have to or because it's a requirement. They literally just want to be able to invite whoever the heck they want to the ceremony without having to host them. I think it's tacky. And what you described is still a tiered reception IMO. You're still letting your guests know where they rank. 

But they aren't invited guests, they're members of the church who chose to attend a public function at the church.  I've also seen churches host C&P receptions.  You think its tacky for there to be something at the church (hosted by the church or the couple) for the general public/church members but that only invited guests are hosted for the actual dinner reception?  I disagree.

I guess it's a fine line. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just wouldn't be comfortable doing that at my wedding personally. Like I said, I think if it is a requirement by the church then it's different because I see that as more the wedding being announced. I just don't like that my friend is using that as a way to have a tiered reception. She's not doing it because it's a requirement or church rule, she just wants to be able to invite whoever she wants but not host them. I see that as different than the church making an announcement that an event will be taking place.

Again - it's JMO. I understand now that there aren't etiquette rules against it. @Maggie0829 curious what you think? 

ETA: I guess another reason it makes me uneasy is that I feel like there are a lot of the church invitees who will still bring my friend gifts. Obviously nobody is ever obligated to, but it just seems odd that you'd be fine accepting a wedding gift from someone who attended your ceremony but you don't thank them with a hosted reception.

I don't see it as being a tiered reception. Many times if the couple is an involved member of the church the wedding is announced via newsletter or bulletin so that anyone who is a member of the congregation can show up and witness the ceremony. I find that couples who do host a quick cake and punch type event after the ceremony for guests and members of the congregation are is just trying to be polite and take a moment to thank those that weren't invited but wanted to see the ceremony and give their congrats and good wishes.

Also this type of thing is many times not a requirement of the church.  Having a shirt cake and punch gathering right after the wedding is completely voluntary.  If the couple didn't host one then they wouldn't be in the wrong.  If members of the church want to witness the wedding ceremony they do so voluntarily and knowing that they are not entitled to any type of thank you because they weren't formally invited.