Another vote for the husband.
Your friend’s man is a dick. Sounds like a control freak. If he’s really that opposed to meat, why is he going to a restaurant that sells it?
Reimburse them for the price of your husband’s meal and tell 'em “so long.” You don’t need “friends” like this.
I note that you can’t find any actual harm caused by apologizing; indeed, if you’re the sort of person who would dislike himself (or herself, depending) for making a social apology, that’s all the more reason to do it: getting over oneself is always a healthy step to take.
Daniel
Another vote for your friend’s husband being a jerk.
If he really didn’t want to be offended by someone ordering meat on his tab, then he shouldn’t have hosted a meal at a restaurant that serves meat.
A general Miss Manners rule is that hosts should make guests feel comfortable. If anything, I think this guy owes your husband an apology.
For what? Paying for the dude’s dinner. Talking privately to his own wife? What did he do that he needs to apologize for?
The OP may it sound like things “got cool” after her husband ordered a meat dish. To me, this sounds like he somehow wore his feelings on his sleeve in order to make his guest uncomfortable with his meal choice. That sounds pretty rude to me. Granted, it could have just been her perception.
LEFT HAND, the “actual harm” caused by apologizing when no apology is called for, is that it diminishes the meaning and value of a true apology.
There are two levels of “sorry” in my life: One, the social “sorry!” for when I bump into you on the street or step on your foot or something. Two, the apology, for when I have behaved badly or caused you offense in a way that was foreseeable, had I stopped to think the matter through. I issue apologies for actions for which I am at fault and in the wrong, and when I apologize to someone, it means something, because I don’t do it every day, or for every act.
You, on the other hand, apparently apologize whenever you think the other person will be made more comfortable by your apology – and that’s totally fine, of course. But IMO such “quasi-social,” I-don’t-really-mean-it-but-what-could-it-hurt apologies change, and devalue, what it means to apologize, by sucking the sincerity out of it. That’s the harm to it, and that’s why I think it shouldn’t be done.
Not at all. Such an apology means, “Look, I didn’t knowingly cause any harm, but nonetheless, I took an action that contributed to causing pain. Now that I know this, I will avoid taking such an action in the future, and I wish the whole event hadn’t occurred.”
There is nothing insincere there. And whether SBS’s husband is at fault is not the issue: the point is that, but for his action of ordering meat, the other guy wouldn’t have felt the pain.
Sure, the other guy contributed to it as well, and I’d similarly advise him to apologize back–especially for implying, however indirectly and undeliberately, that SBS’s husband did something wrong. I’d advise him to make the first apology, in fact; I’d advise both of them to make the first apology.
It’s not insincere, and it doesn’t devalue apologies in general. Quite the opposite: it accomplishes the primary goals of apologies, and smooths social interactions.
Daniel
I don’t think the primary goal of an apology is to smooth social interactions Left Hand. They’re to express true regret. It is insincere in that the person you think should apologize doesn’t think he did anything wrong. How simpler can I state this? If you knew someone that apologized just to smooth out social situations and this person apologized for wronging you in some way, the apology wouldn’t be devalued to you?
The other way that apologizing for things you don’t think are your fault, is that you are telling the person you think is in the wrong, that they don’t need to re-evaluate the situation.
The Jain needs to see that a mostly non-Jain society isn’t going to conform to his beliefs or needs; he needs to conform to them. He should be angry with himself for not handling things different from the start (go to a vegetarian restaurant, or explain beforehand that you’d like to pay but your religion prohibits you from paying for meat.). You invite me to a Middle Eastern restaurant and I’m gonna be ordering a small farm.
I don’t think anyone involved is actually in the wrong here. Maybe Polly’s husband is somewhat, but I certainly wouldn’t say he’s being a jerk. A bit unreasonable perhaps, but not a jerk. He’s quite entitled to not want to pay for meat - maybe a little rude, but I can completely understand why - but he should have mentioned it before hand. (Ideal ways to mention such including “I’m sorry, I know this is rather inconvenient, but for religious reasons I’d really rather not pay for meat. I hope that’s ok.” or some such).
What I’m having trouble with however is all these people in this thread who are saying that people who have moral objections to eating meat shouldn’t eat at restaurants that serve meat. I have two problems with this:
Firstly, it’s a patently ridiculous statement.
Secondly, I know a lot of people who are vegetarian (or vegan) for moral reasons, including several who hold their beliefs very strongly and are rather active in trying to convert people (yes, this annoys me too). I have never, ever, encountered anyone who acts this way.
Let me elaborate on my first statement. Again, it has two parts to it. Firstly, in buying a non-meat product from somewhere that also serves meat, one is not condoning the act of serving meat. If I was to help out a friend who is not a vegetarian, in some completely non food related way, would I be condoning their meat eating practices? Only if I was so extreme that I refused to be friends with anyone who is not vegetarian. (I know, argument by analogy is weak, but this isn’t GD and it’s a reasonably strong analogy). Supporting and activity done by someone who also does things you disapprove of is not the same as supporting the activity you disapprove of.
Secondly, there is a practical consideration of how far you want to take things. Are you going to refuse to shop at stores where they also sell meat? To buy clothes from places that sell leather? Also, how do you know that the suppliers for the stores you’re buying from or restaurants you’re eating at don’t get their products or ingredients from people who also supply meat. You’d better check that as well… You’ll be hard pressed to get by with that sort of attitude, and to do so you’ll probably have to either a) Grow just about all your own food in an extremely labour intensive manner and make all your own clothes, or b) Move to a big city where there are lots of alternative stores (and thus support the industrialisation and polution of the world, leading to the deaths of more fuzzies. Guess you can’t win). Just because someone has a strongly held moral belief doesn’t mean it is their only guiding principle. Contrary to what some of you have been saying, a ‘devout’ vegetarian doesn’t lose the ability to be rational, and with being rational comes the ability to make compromises. It’s just a question of where people decide to make this compromise.
Ugh. I have a feeling the above post was totally incoherent. If so, I apologise. At any rate, the second one is probably the more compelling point - despite what people seem to think in this thread, that’s not actually what anyone does.
(For the record, if anyone cares, I am a vegetarian, mostly for moral reasons. I’m perfectly happy to eat in restaurants that serve meat, and if I was treating I’d be willing to buy other people meat. I’d probably prefer not to, but I wouldn’t make an issue of it).
I have no idea how simpler you can state it, but you needn’t worry about it: I understand perfectly what you’re saying, and I just disagree with it. An apology does not always say, “What I did was wrong”; sometimes it says, “I wish this event hadn’t happened, and I will try to prevent its occurrence in the future.”
Daniel
I am reminded of a line from Jim Bouton’s book, Ball Four to the effect that, “It never hurts to apologize especially if you don’t mean it.”
It seems to me that the husband/guest who did nothing wrong has nothing to apologize for. The Jainist/husband/host who griped about husband/guest’s conduct to his own spouse has nothing to apologize for either. The people at fault here are the wives. The OP wife, if she thought her hubby was making a social faux paus, should’ve corrected him at the time, perhaps by kicking him in the shins when he placed his order and saying, “Dear, perhaps you should try the salad instead.” By the same token, the host’s wife should’ve kept her husband’s gripe to herself. This whole social drama was caused by the wives and not the husbands.
While I don’t necessarily agree with you, I understand this position in a neutral context. However, I just can’t see myself as apologizing to someone that I believed was the one in the wrong. It seems at that point that I’d be condoning their behavior.
Put me down as another ‘the OP’s hubby was not in the wrong’ vote. Truly, if anything, I think that Polly was the one in the wrong, for having knowledge of both parties, and not doing enough to avoid this issue.
If the husband were to say just that, it would be a very nice thing for him to do. However, it seems more realistic to me for the girls to just pursue their own friendship and leave the guys out of it. I don’t like all the same people as my SO and vice versa, so we don’t necessarily do all our socializing as a unit.
LHOD, this is the first time I have ever not agreed with you 100%! My illusions are shattered! 
You were totally coherent. 
I think what people are saying is that, Polly’s husband shouldn’t have taken them to a restaurant where they serve meat (since there was a chance of the the other couple ordering meat) and THEN being pissy about it without mentioning it. If he was going to get pissy about it, then ensure that it won’t happen by taking them to all-veggie fare.
You yourself said you wouldn’t make an issue of it, and that’s perfectly ok. Polly’s husband sort of did–by being cool throughtout their outing.
I think your friend’s husband was being an asshat. Who the hell takes someone out to dinner with strings attached? That’s like me saying I have a moral objection to the use of chilis, then taking someone to a Chinese restaurant and getting pissed when a guest orders General Tso’s chicken. If your friend’s husband knew he would be upset to pay for someone to eat meat, he should have taken you to a vegetarian restaurant.
Even just telling you advance, then taking you somewhere where they offer meat is, in my opinion, rude. You don’t take someone out to dinner, then dictate what they can eat. Especially because many restaurants not specializing in vegetarian fare (though middle eastern restaurants do a great job of it) make crappy vegetarian food. It would be far easier if the couple had just taken you out to a vegetarian restaurant instead.
Either way, I really don’t think it’s up to your husband to apologize. I think it’s up to your husband’s friend to get over himself and not expect others to read his mind.
I have to disagree with your disagreement on that statement. The central organizing principle of etiquette is to not make another uncomfortable. I’ve eaten meat in the presence of plenty of vegetarians and wouldn’t expect one to be offended if she was taking me to dinner and I ordered meat. Even if she isn’t aware, the odds are pretty high that I am a habitual meat eater. But if she were to ask that I refrain from meat when I’m eating on her dime, that’s okay with me.
Personally, I think that it would have been more than acceptable to say, “I’m sorry, this is quite tactless of me, but because of my beliefs about meat would you be kind enough to reconsider your order?” Because of the phrasing, I wouldn’t feel as if I had transgressed and I would understand the basis for the request without making her give the details of her views.
Yowza. He’s a Jain?? I’m sorry if I offend anyone else on the board, but Jainism is a pretty extreme religion, and I’m surprised that he’s married if he is Jain, because I believe that celibacy is one of the tenants of the religion. Here’s a link to some info:
Jainism. I’m sorry if I’m duplicating efforts here - I haven’t read the whole thread yet. Either way, some of the really hard-core Jains will not even squash a bug, and wear medical masks over their nose and mouth to avoid inhaling and killing any bacteria.
According to my husband, who comes from India, most Jains he knows (and he doesn’t know that many, so take this with a grain of salt) are pretty whacko with the religion. However, I’m sure your friend’s husband is different - after all, if he makes your friend happy, that’s what counts. However, keep in mind that Jainism tends to be a very strict religion, especially with regards to vegetarianism. I believe my husband mentioned that not only can Jains not eat meat, the really strict ones cannot eat anything that grows below the ground - i.e., no tubers, onions, carrots, that sort of thing. I seem to recall that the reason for this is to avoid killing any insects or bacteria clinging to the roots of the plants. Either way, it’s a pretty limiting religion, especially food-wise. Here’s another article on the subject if you’re interested: What it means to be a Jain
Did I call him a jerk?
Most, if not all, religions make their people do some absurd stuff. That doesn’t make them jerks. It just makes them “people who do absurd stuff”.
LHD –
Except you’re attributing feelings to the “apologizer” that he may not feel – Lord knows I wouldn’t. “I took an action that contributed to causing pain” – no, I didn’t! You offered to take me to dinner, and I ordered dinner, right off the menu. There is no reason that should cause you pain (especially when the choice of restaurant was up to you). If you’re feeling pain because of this, that pain is not IMO reasonable. “I will avoid taking such action in the future” – no, I won’t. Knowing exactly what I knew then about your beliefs – which is to say, nothing – I wouldl do exactly the same thing: Order what I like from the choices presented and assume that’s okay with you. “I wish the whole event hadn’t occurred” – no, I don’t. Well, sure, I wish that you weren’t so lacking in foresight that you would place yourself in a position where people of good will could unwittingly insult your beliefs, but that’s your problem, not mine. I certainly don’t wish that I had acted any differently; how the hell else am I supposed to act? You invite me out, you pick the restaurant, I order an entree, we eat and chat and laugh and have fun. I’m certainly not going to sit there gnawing my lower lip thinking, Gosh, I wonder if this guy is a Jain?
For you, maybe. I couldn’t choke it out.
Listen, your posts are causing me pain. Don’t worry about whether or not that’s reasonable, or whether or not you had any reason to think they would – they do, and apparently there’s no need to look beyond that. So I await your sincere apology.
Sincere or not, it does devalue apologies in general. When you apologize for behavior that is not your fault, that could not have been foreseen by you, and that could not reasonably be understood to cause pain, then you’ve pretty much signalled you’ll apologize for anything. Regardless of whether or not you see why this makes your apologies less meaningful, it does. Just like my demand for an apology above: Either you’re going to (rightly) refuse, because you’ve done nothing wrong, or you will demonstrate that you’ll apologize for pretty much anything.
OVERLYVERBOSE –
Ha! I love your analogy. To me, that’s it in a nutshell.
JS_AFRICANUS –
I’m with you, so long as you recognize that the person violating etiquette is her, not you, by making you uncomfortable by informing you that certain things you might order are not acceptable to her. Like I’ve said, the way to avoid this is to take the friends to a veggie restaurant, where they can order with impunity and the payer does not have to be so rude as to request or demand they not order something “wrong.”
I have no problem with this, so long as the person acknowledges that the lack of tact (the etiquette violation) is his or hers, not his or her guests. And I would assume that person would take them to a veggie restaurant the next time, to avoid having to be so tactless again. Frankly, so far as this point is concerned, I think the OP’s Jain guy did the right thing, and the correct thing insofar as manners are concerned, which was to recognize that he could not ask his guests to tailor their orders to his beliefs, and to just choke it down (ha!) and pay as agreed. So I agree with DIOGENES, if all the guy did was bitch about the situation to his wife later, then the faux pas is hers, not his, because she should not have shared that with her friend. If Jain Wife had kept her mouth shut and Mr. and Mrs. Jains had just resolved between themselves to take people to veggie restaurants when it’s their treat, then no one would have felt bad at all.
Whatever, Jodi. That’s a load more self-righteousness than I’m willing to deal with. So whatever.
Daniel