Possibly the most outrageous request I've ever heard! Update pg. 9, 15, 20, 29

[Acadianna]

I do believe this is the most despicable treatment of a human being I've ever read about on this board.  Dave would be well advised to break off his engagement to the heartless and toxic Louise, whose character is probably beyond salvage.  The thought of her as mother to children horrifies me.

My heart goes out to Susan.

Susan should tell Dave, "I'm willing to step down from the bridal party. At this point, I don't want to be in it anymore. But if I don't attend the wedding, do you want to be the one to have to explain to Mom why I'm not there? If Louise will compromise that far, no more will be said about it. I respect her less for this, but that'll be between the two of us. You are in the middle of it, bro, whether you like it or not, because you're letting her treat me like a freak and acting like it's fine with you if she does. I'm really disappointed and hurt."

And another POD to this excellent advice.

(Edited for grammar.)

[Hawkwatcher]

I don't think it's that unusual to have the groom's sister in the bridal party, even if the sister and the bride aren't particularly close.

I agree.  Louise might have asked Susan to be a bridesmaid because some people believe that they have to include relatives in the bridal party. 

Unfortunately, I agree with the posters who are concerned that Dave and Louise won't not tell the truth about why they disinvited Susan.  They may leave out some facts to make themselves look good at Susan's expense.  If Susan wants her family to know the truth, she is going to have to be the one to tell them what happened.

But if Susan does tell her family, she needs to be prepared for the fact that they might contact Dave and Louise.  Dave and Louise might try to "save face" by claiming that this "all a big misunderstanding" and that Susan is welcome to participate in the wedding. 

If they apologized and offered to let Susan in the wedding party, would she still be interested?

[gramma dishes]

...   I agree with the posters who are concerned that Dave and Louise won't not tell the truth about why they disinvited Susan.  They may leave out some facts to make themselves look good at Susan's expense.  If Susan wants her family to know the truth, she is going to have to be the one to tell them what happened.
...

I agree that she's going to have to tell them herself because it is incredibly unlikely that Dave and Louise will tell the truth here.
Was it ever established whether or not the communication from Louise actually was in the form of an email?  If it was, I'd just forward that to the parents or at least make a hard copy for them to peruse on their own.

[PeterM]

4. Susan very much feels that she and Louise are adults and that any problems between them should be worked out between them.

That being said, Susan is reluctant to bring this to her mother or anyone else really.  This is the first time she's experience any blatant disapproval because of her arm and she's rather embarassed.

If Susan doesn't go to the wedding there is literally no chance that this matter will remain between her and Louise. It will be noticed that she's not at her brother's wedding, and the only people there who have any knowledge of the situation are not people I would trust to tell the truth. To put it mildly. Louise has already effectively made this a public matter, whether she realizes it or not.

She's asked Dave to meet her for lunch in a couple of days to talk, once she has had a chance to really think through what she wants to do.

That sounds like a good next step. She should ask Dave what he prefers. If he says he'd prefer she not attend, that should tell her all she needs to know. And if she ends up not attending, be it by Dave's or Louise's request, I would make it clear to the both of them that I would not lie to cover for them, and they'd better stick to meaningless generalities or the strict truth when discussing the matter with others unless they want all hell to break loose.

[PeterM]

Because there is no pattern of behavior. It is not bullying be nasty or mean to someone in a one time incident. If it was, everyone on the planet would be a bully, because everyone has done something awful to another person at some point. If everyone is a bully then the term loses all meaning.

Distant Star said this was a bullying situation.  She didn't say that Louise was a bully, but that the behaviour was.  You don't need a pattern of behaviour to call out one instance of behaviour as "bullying", you only need that pattern of behaviour to label a person as a bully.

It is impossible to have a "bullying situation" is no one is being a bully. Otherwise it's just someone being mean and nasty.

I don't agree with this at all. So if a friend of mine acts like a jerk in a specific situation, but is usually quite pleasant, you would argue that saying "He was a jerk!" would be factually incorrect because he's not always a jerk?

And how come "mean and nasty" is okay to apply based on only one situation but "bullying" isn't? Do you really think the former is better than the latter? If we were talking about kids I could kind of see the point of avoiding a hot button label, but these are grown adults. At least theoretically, in Louise's case.

[something.new.every.day]

posting for updates

[AngelBarchild]

Because there is no pattern of behavior. It is not bullying be nasty or mean to someone in a one time incident. If it was, everyone on the planet would be a bully, because everyone has done something awful to another person at some point. If everyone is a bully then the term loses all meaning.

Distant Star said this was a bullying situation.  She didn't say that Louise was a bully, but that the behaviour was.  You don't need a pattern of behaviour to call out one instance of behaviour as "bullying", you only need that pattern of behaviour to label a person as a bully.

It is impossible to have a "bullying situation" is no one is being a bully. Otherwise it's just someone being mean and nasty.

I don't agree with this at all. So if a friend of mine acts like a jerk in a specific situation, but is usually quite pleasant, you would argue that saying "He was a jerk!" would be factually incorrect because he's not always a jerk?

And how come "mean and nasty" is okay to apply based on only one situation but "bullying" isn't? Do you really think the former is better than the latter? If we were talking about kids I could kind of see the point of avoiding a hot button label, but these are grown adults. At least theoretically, in Louise's case.

I think  bully is a hot button label for everyone now days, not just children. Bullying is by definition is a pattern of behavior, and far more serious (in most cases) than  single instance of nasty behavior. When we water down the meaning until every offensive action is bullying we do a terrible disservice those who have suffered at the hands of bullies over the years.

[Sharnita]

first of all, I would say that you are way too invested in the pattern part of your definition.  Second of all, I would say there actually is a pattern.  Louise first picks out a different dress to set Susan apart.  She insists Susan where the prosthesis.  When she doesn't seem to "win" either of those attacks she decides to not only kick Susan out of the WP but also ban her from the wedding itself.  There isn't just one act here, there are actually several attacks on Susan.

[greencat]

Who cares if Louise is a bully?  Louise is an overt bigot.  Polite society does not tolerate bigotry.  Polite society does not excuse or cover up bigotry either.

[TootsNYC]

Given that Susan and Dave's father has passed away and their mother is not in good health, if I were Susan, I'd be nearly frantic.

What's that line from Richard III?
"Ah, me, I see the ruin of my house."

I would assume that soon I would lose my brother. That his wife would pressure him to cease contact with me.

[Knitterly]

Because there is no pattern of behavior. It is not bullying be nasty or mean to someone in a one time incident. If it was, everyone on the planet would be a bully, because everyone has done something awful to another person at some point. If everyone is a bully then the term loses all meaning.

Distant Star said this was a bullying situation.  She didn't say that Louise was a bully, but that the behaviour was.  You don't need a pattern of behaviour to call out one instance of behaviour as "bullying", you only need that pattern of behaviour to label a person as a bully.

It is impossible to have a "bullying situation" is no one is being a bully. Otherwise it's just someone being mean and nasty.

I don't agree with this at all. So if a friend of mine acts like a jerk in a specific situation, but is usually quite pleasant, you would argue that saying "He was a jerk!" would be factually incorrect because he's not always a jerk?

And how come "mean and nasty" is okay to apply based on only one situation but "bullying" isn't? Do you really think the former is better than the latter? If we were talking about kids I could kind of see the point of avoiding a hot button label, but these are grown adults. At least theoretically, in Louise's case.

I think  bully is a hot button label for everyone now days, not just children. Bullying is by definition is a pattern of behavior, and far more serious (in most cases) than  single instance of nasty behavior. When we water down the meaning until every offensive action is bullying we do a terrible disservice those who have suffered at the hands of bullies over the years.

The definition of bully (as a verb, taken from my copy of the Merriam Webster dictionary) is "To treat abusively; to affect by means of force or coercion".  In this case, Susan is being bullied by Louise to wear her prosthesis.  She MUST wear it and hide her difference or she is not permitted to attend her brother's wedding.   She is being affected by means of coercion and also being treated abusively.  She is being bullied.

We cannot say whether Louise is a bully and habitually mistreats people, but whether or not she is habitually a bully, she is undeniably bullying Susan.

I do hope that Susan is able to clear the air with her brother, and I sincerely hope that she lets their mother (at the very least) know the truth about why she won't be at the wedding if Dave chooses to side with Louise.  And I sincerely hope that Louise backpedals hard on this one and realized how truly awful she is being!!!

[AmysAuntie]

Bigotry should never be rewarded by silent complicity.

Truer words were never spoken.

[cheyne]

I am hoping that the OP will update us on whether there is something else going on between Louise and Susan.  I just can't imagine anyone dis-inviting their fiances sister because she is missing part of her arm and for no other reason.  Susan's arm has been like this since birth, surely Louise has seen the arm numerous times.  Why would it start bothering her now? 

I am NOT defending Louise in any way-but could this be something with her parents?  Did her mom or dad say they couldn't or wouldn't attend the wedding unless Susan wore the prosthesis?   That would be the only way I'd have an iota of sympathy for Louise, but I would still tell her to tell her parent to suck it up and deal.

One other possibility:  OP, is Louise mentally unstable?  Have there been other past incidents that would show that Louise has a fixation on Susan's arm?  Is she from a family that feels these kinds of things are from evil spirits or the Devil?  Otherwise I got nothin'.

[Shopaholic]

What I was thinking is that Louise may have been put under some pressure or have gotten some ideas from the other bridesmaids, because the different dress just came up after the dress-shopping outing.

[Moray]

Who cares if Louise is a bully?  Louise is an overt bigot.  Polite society does not tolerate bigotry.  Polite society does not excuse or cover up bigotry either.

Exactly. The word "bully" is becoming a red herring in this thread. Regardless of label, Louise's behavior is unacceptable, and so is Dave's, perhaps more so.