Skip to comments.Black couple denied wedding at Mississippi church July 30, 2012
Posted on 07/30/2012 4:16:00 PM PDT by Morgana
A rally will be held Monday night in Crystal Springs, Mississippi after a black couple wasnt allowed to get married at their church because of their race.
The Wilsons were told they couldnt wed at the town's First Baptist Church because it goes against tradition since a black couple had never been married there in its 129-year history.
Charles Wilson and his fiance, Te'Andrea, wanted to get married there, but church members got upset. The paster then asked the couple to take their wedding elsewhere.
"This had never been done here before, so it was setting a new precedent, and there were those who reacted to that," said Pastor Stan Weatherford.
"All we wanted to do in the eyes of God was to be man and wife in a church where we thought we felt loved, said Charles Wilson.
Pastor Weatherford presided over the couples wedding at a nearby church. He says he wanted to avoid controversy and protect the couple.
(Excerpt) Read more at wjla.com ...
I think I read tis story on another thread over the weekend. Unless this is becoming more common.
They can go to the church, but they can’t get married there? Time to find another church.
A friend of mine told me that back in the 70s members of his church were knocking on doors inviting people to church. One guy asked what they were supposed to do if a black answered the door. My friend told him “Invite them to church or tell them to go to hell”.
You can be married in the eyes of God without a church being involved. “Church” is any time two or more come together in HIS name.
If this is really true, shame on those church people that would not support this. We rail against Blacks because there are no men in the house and then when a Black man and a Black woman want to get married, refuse to allow them to do it in a church of their choice. This is despicable.
This whole story smells funny to me.
>>A rally will be held Monday night in Crystal Springs, Mississippi after a black couple wasnt allowed to get married at their church because of their race.
Ahh wonderful. A rally! The media is stirring the pot on this, keeping this week-old story alive. This church will probably burn down or be vandalized and that’s another victory for the secular media.
Not just “a church of their choice,” but the church where they were regular attendees. (I think it’s reasonable for a church not to hold weddings for people who aren’t members of the congregation.) The pastor should have said, “Guess what, folks: we have a new tradition! Anyone who attends this church can get married here!”
More likely this is a Dnc/msm campaign stunt to gin up the Obama voter base.
But before anyone suggests forcing the church to marry them, consider the consequences. IMHO, the government should never have any power to compel anything of a church-and vice versa.
I'm with you - my finely calibrated BS detector tells me that there's probably a lot more to this story.
WTH? Are we sure it isn’t a Westboro Baptist God hates everyone church?
This makes no sense and it is racist. Against tradition because no other blacks have been married there? Just dumb, I wonder how big they are.
AFAIAC this is a distraction. How many members does this church have?
I seriously doubt they gather in His name.
I missed something.
The Pastor who refused their marriage at his church then marries them at another church?
I agree with the people who thinks something is wrong about this story.
Seriously, I bet this stupidity is going to cost them a lot of members and donations. I am not sure it should be illegal since churches should be free to make their own rules and stuff, though.
“The pastor should have said, Guess what, folks: we have a new tradition! Anyone who attends this church can get married here!”
Most Baptist Pastors serve at the pleasure of the Board of Elders. They typically live in church owned parsonage. The pastor is hostage to the whims of the church leadership.
>So it's 1950 again?<
In the 1950s local journalists and their copy editors knew how to spell pastor.
I question the veracity of this column. Were the bride and groom members of the church?
Oh, then I can see that’s being a problem for the pastor.
Maybe other posters are right about there being more to the story. For instance, if the church building is a desirable historic venue, the congregation should be within their rights to say, “We only hold weddings for church members.” However, an earlier article I read said the couple attended the church.
What part did the Obama administration reelection operation play in this?
If this story is true, it’s disgusting. Shame on the parishioners. Shame on the pastor.
Attending a Baptist church does not make you a member. You either have to be baptized in that church or join by letter from another church that states you have been saved and baptized by their church OR you can join by a statement of faith which states you have been saved and baptized. Just attending for 50 years does not make you a member.
I honestly do not know if our church constitution allows only for members to get married in the church or not and I honestly do not remember a single couple getting married in our church that were not members.
The church constitution rules though if it states members only then it is members only. Our Pastor may perform a wedding at another church or at a secular place that rents out for weddings and receptions.
Even ignoring the racism, since when does “not ever having done something before” constitute a “tradition”? I’ve never eaten yogurt but that doesn’t make it a freaking tradition.
hmmmmmmm....As presented, the church is way wrong on this.
Should have just said we only marry church members in good standing.
So I guess there's a kind of deniability here in that those people aren't going to identify themselves and, if they are identified, they can always say that race wasn't the reason, that it was just that they weren't "our kind of people," that this wasn't the sort of wedding you wanted to have here, or something of that sort.
The Rev. Stan Weatherford is a gutless coward if he allowed the membership to force his hand here. He should have told off the members who complained to him in the first place and placed the right choice over the whims of a few peckerwoods.
Of course, if nobody had ever been married in the church, it might explain alot. The article never says anybody had been, merely no black couple had been married there in 129 years.
I hear bits and pieces of church saga from some of GF’s family that attend the neighborhood Baptist Church. I’d bet a month’s paycheck that the elders board there would be hiring a new pastor if the current one crossed into any cultural territory that broke tradition.
And you don’t think the community should make a statement about the church’s position?
A Black heterosexual couple who attend that church can't get married in it because no Black couple had ever been married in it before? Why did it admit them as members if they were going to have to go elsewhere to get married?
Are the members of that church against the idea of Blacks procreating or something?
As a very loud and unapologetic defender of poor Southern rural whites, I'm going to say something I will probably regret later, but here it goes: some stereotypes really are true.
Have you ever lived in the South?
I’m having a hard time believing this.
Most Baptist don’t have Elders, have Deacons. The pastor is still in charge. I attended one of the largest Baptist churches in the country. The pastor said that people of any color were welcome to worship and if someone didn’t like it they could go elsewhere.
I have no idea if there is any truth to this article or not but see my previous post. It says they attended this church which means nothing. Our church has had people that attended for years and years and because they are not members, which occurs in a very specific and defined manner, they cannot teach a class, they cannot keep the nursery, they cannot fill any church office, and it is possible, as I stated, that they cannot get married but I am not sure about that because I do not have a copy of our constitution handy and cannot remember anything about that.
Lizzie Warren is black.....when it’s to her advantage.
Knowing the nature of our enemies, your skepticism is healthy. The article states specifically that the couple was refused a wedding because of their race. If this is not so, if the refusal was for some other reason, then this church should sue for libel. This type of trick (if that's what it is) is just what the Dems need to get folks' minds off of Obama's endorsement of "gay marriage."
However, if the story is accurate, those responsible for this decision should be ashamed of themselves and subjected to church discipline, if it is available.
>>And you dont think the community should make a statement about the churchs position?
I want to hear the church’s story first. Something sounds fishy about this. The couple says they just wanted to get married someplace where they could feel loved. Obviously, they aren’t members, or have even attended that church. We’re not hearing enough details to condemn this congregation, but the media is certainly using all the keywords to guarantee community outrage.
My church had to turn away a couple this year who wanted to get married and insisted that we let them “borrow” all the tables and chairs from our fellowship hall to take to their house for the reception on a Saturday afternoon. They said that they’d return everything by Sunday morning. We explained that we aren’t in the furniture rental business and they got angry that we’d charge them (as non-members or even attendees) $300 to use the church and not let them take all our tables and chairs off-site.
But, I’m sure their side of the story is that we care more about our furniture than people in the community.
The pastor himself seems to confirm the story and the couple said they’d thought they felt loved at the church, so I’m not seeing anything saying they’ve not at least attended previously.
I’m waiting for the NASA thread where you claim she is Martian........when it is convenient.
If these folks are members of the church or one of them is a member of the church then they should be able to get married to deny that because of race is racism. On the other hand if neither where members then the church has the right to deny them use of the church, most churches have bylaws to govern such things.
The article linked in #22 says she’d been attending for about a year, and he had for a month. Actual membership is a different issue, of course.