I certainly see the merits in the dinner party analogy, but it also has its limits, because:
1. Many DMs run for at least some players they didn't know well beforehand. Most of my groups have been like that. And, of the people I personally know, most groups they've played in have included at least one such person. Anecdotes aren't data, but like...what I have available to me says this is hardly uncommon. If you're preparing dinners for people you don't know, it's probably wise to avoid things like pork, given there's quite a few people who won't eat it.
Many people host dinner parties where invitees are free to invite an additional guests. Generally it is a good idea let people have an idea what you'll be serving unless you know then very well, but it is not incumbent on the host to accomodate a guest's special requests. Even restaurants limit what they will accomodate.
2. The "guests" at this ~~D&D game~~ dinner arrangement aren't just getting a single, one-off meal. They're getting, in some sense, a once-a-week meal plan indefinitely (and most want that to be "many months" at least.) If we tweak the analogy so that it becomes "hey, come over and have dinner at my place once weekly for a year," doesn't that profoundly change the meaning of refusing to consider the dietary needs and preferences of the "guests"?
Not really. I've had vegetarian friends who regularly invited friends to dinner. I would never feel it appropriate to request they add a meat dish.
3. If you're going out seeking people to come to a party, I don't see how that reduces the need to be accommodating. If anything, it would seem to me that nothing changes on that front. If you don't know what preferences your guests might have, the wise course is to prepare for likely ones. E.g. when you're planning a party for something like a class of students, there's a good reason "pizza party" is so popular--just picking a couple of common flavors
How accommodating I need to be depends on the context. With my regular group, we come to a consensus on what kind of game we want to play. If I have a specific campaign idea I want to run and I post a call for players, I feel no obligation to be accomodating. I'm only interested in having players that are interested in playing in that campaign. There are campaigns I would like to run that if I can't find any players for, I would rather just ditch the campaign than change it. When I join a game run by another DM, if I don't think that the limitations or requirements will be fun for me, I won't join that campaign. When I do join another DM's campaign, I enthusiastically play by whatever rules and limitations have been set for that campaign.
So, while there is something to consider with the "host making something" concept, there are issues with the analogy that, when fixed, seem to reverse the conclusions we should draw from it. Note that I am not rejecting the argument by analogy in principle. I am accepting it, but noting that it left out something very important.
Then it sounds to me like, in this hypothetical, you've come to a conclusion without any effort to discuss it or find a solution, and thus it is pretty clearly on you for that. From where I'm standing, this could be summarized as, "I thought it over, I'm completely against it and won't discuss it further."
I guess where we differ fundamentally is that I see no problem to be solved. I've run anything-goes campaigns and have had fun with those. But I don't want every campaign to be like that. I've also run campaigns that heavily restricted character options. It has just never been an issue.
Because, in essentially every case, it boils down to:
"I didn't think of it, so I won't allow it, there will be no discussion"
Which can be reasonable. If I didn't think of it, I may not have prepared for it and it is just easier on me if you stick to the character options that I'm allowing for this campaign. I have run games that lean heavily into collaborative world building and are very improvisational. But when running a more tightly themed campaign, I'm less inclined to but put in the work and re-work needed to accommodate certain choices. Depending on the situation and person, that may mean we'll ditch the campaign and play something else, the player will not join this campaign, or--which is almost always the case--the player will not be too hung up about it and will select an allowed option.
"I don't like it, so I won't allow it, there will be no discussion"
"I don't like it" is one of the best reasons. If I don't like it, why would I be spending my precious free time doing it?
or
Claiming the thing is overpowered when it demonstrably isn't.
Whether something is overpowered and whether being "overpowered" is even an issue is a whole debate in itself. In my experience, it is more that certain options are just difficult or annoying for me to deal with. Whether it is just because I'm not a very good DM, am too lazy to put in the work, or whatever other reason, it really doesn't matter. If it is making prepping and running a game not fun for me, I'll cut it out, play another game, or just take a break from running games.
In my campaign that just wrapped up, we played through 20th level. It was gonzo. In addition to all the RAW rules, there were also powers and features provided by Stronghold and Followers, fame/infamy, alchemy, and magical crafting rules. One of the players was a Worg, based on a custom race I created in DnD Beyond. Early in the campaign that worg survived a curse but left the word with demonic goat legs giving it extra jumping ability. Later in the campaign that Word PC contracted lycanthropy and became a were-tiger. So there was a 20th level demonic-goat-legged were-worg-tiger in the party. That may seem gonzo, but just with RAW rules we had the wizard with a clone, true polymorphing several of the players into dragons, beholders, and other high-level. Don't even get me started about wishes.
It was gonzo. It was fun. I would say it was a campaign that gave the players a GREAT deal of agency.
It was also exhausting to prep and run and I'll be taking a break from that kind of campaign for probably a couple of years.
In nearly every case, discussion is shut down long before it could even potentially begin. That is the problem I keep having. Consider:
There will never be discussion--ever. No reason, no explanation, not even an attempt to meet halfway. Take it or leave it.
I've rarely encountered this outside of reading about it in discussion boards. But if some DMs' enjoyment of running a game is predicated on only specific races/species and classes, I see no reason why those DMs should feel obligated to run games that allow options they don't have fun running games with.
That's exactly the kind of thing I oppose. If you have players who put up with that sort of attitude, more power to you.
I generally have players who enjoy playing campaigns with different themes and options, including limitations. I can't imagine the adults I play with "putting up" with something they don't enjoy for years.
When you elide out the discussion, it looks rather a lot like no discussion ever occurred.
Sometimes the only discussion needed is setting out the campaign concept and saying if this is your jam, you are welcome to join.
In which case, I find your hypothetical strained at best. In essentially all cases, something can be worked out. And in nearly all of the cases something can't be worked out, it's because there was some kind of failure along the way. Perhaps a failure of game design, or of communication. Truly, completely irreconcilable differences are extremely rare--and it is nearly always worthwhile to work out reconcilable ones.
Sure, something
could be worked out if the situation warrants it, but rarely is my monthly game time one where I feel I have to put in the effort to work something out to allow an option I don't want for the game I want to run.
