Being a drug dealer does not inherently make someone a bad person or dangerous. That's one of the points that seems to be getting lost here. If the OP has other reasons to believe this person is a threat, fine, but dealing drugs does not inherently equal dangerous or a threat. Or total lack of judgement either--yes, he's chosen to sell drugs, but that doesn't mean he's going to do it everywhere he goes!
I'm positive I had multiple former drug dealers at my wedding. I don't know if any of them still sell. I know most of them still at least do some drugs, though. My family background isn't exactly all roses and butterflies.
No one did any drugs or sold any drugs at my wedding, at least that myself or any of my other guests or venue was aware of.
I just can't imagine being like "Hey, you're not invited, because I know you have a history of selling drugs and you've been in jail before. I only want people with squeaky-clean backgrounds at my 5-hour dinner event".
I don't agree with this. Since when are people who commit felonies entitled to special consideration and invitations to weddings?
In fact, I think they constitute a valid exception to the SO rule as well.
For someone who's accusing other posters of being judgmental, you're doing an excellent job of passing judgment yourself.
They're not, that's the point! A person's history shouldn't be related to their invitation. I don't think you should invite a person who had a history of doing good deeds unless you were planning to invite them anyway, the same way I don't think you should refuse to invite someone who has a felony in their history.
The other point is that you don't know the history of everyone you're inviting. It's quite possible you have other guests with past felonies that you know nothing about!
Being a drug dealer does not inherently make someone a bad person or dangerous. That's one of the points that seems to be getting lost here. If the OP has other reasons to believe this person is a threat, fine, but dealing drugs does not inherently equal dangerous or a threat. Or total lack of judgement either--yes, he's chosen to sell drugs, but that doesn't mean he's going to do it everywhere he goes!
I'm positive I had multiple former drug dealers at my wedding. I don't know if any of them still sell. I know most of them still at least do some drugs, though. My family background isn't exactly all roses and butterflies.
No one did any drugs or sold any drugs at my wedding, at least that myself or any of my other guests or venue was aware of.
I just can't imagine being like "Hey, you're not invited, because I know you have a history of selling drugs and you've been in jail before. I only want people with squeaky-clean backgrounds at my 5-hour dinner event".
I don't agree with this. Since when are people who commit felonies entitled to special consideration and invitations to weddings?
In fact, I think they constitute a valid exception to the SO rule as well.
For someone who's accusing other posters of being judgmental, you're doing an excellent job of passing judgment yourself.
They're not, that's the point! A person's history shouldn't be related to their invitation. I don't think you should invite a person who had a history of doing good deeds unless you were planning to invite them anyway, the same way I don't think you should refuse to invite someone who has a felony in their history.
The other point is that you don't know the history of everyone you're inviting. It's quite possible you have other guests with past felonies that you know nothing about!
Re: SO question