2 votes

Church blocks 'black couple's' wedding

Church blocks 'black couple's' wedding

by Jimmie E. Gates and Alex McDaniel - Jul. 30, 2012 06:58 AM

JACKSON, Miss. -- A Jackson, Miss., couple's dream of exchanging vows in the church they had been attending was dashed last week when the church pastor told them that some members had complained about the Black couple getting married in the predominantly white First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs.

Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson said it was devastating to move their wedding to another church only days before the July 21 wedding. Invitations and the printed program had the date and the church's name on them.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/30/20120730ch...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The whole story?

This story first appeared in HuffPo, who always has an axe to grind with Christians. I can almost guarantee that there is more to this story that the "injustice" we are hearing about. They obviously attended this church for quite some time with no mention of prejudice being shown to them. Why now? I don't buy it.

I'd like to see how much this

I'd like to see how much this couple donated to the church, and whether or not the church will be giving them a full refund on all their offerings. I'm sure those who are members of the higher up of the church are more than happy to keep the money.

I'll bet

they hung on to their offertory money though.

So many Black people are ridiculously sensitive.

I would expect something like this out of non-Christians, but, if the black couple is truly born-again, their outburst is unjustifiable. If I was attending a black church and several members complained about the black pastor marrying me and my fiance, it would be disappointing that Christians would feel that way, but, I'd just go find another church to get married in - end of story.

"I feel like it was blatant racial discrimination," Wilson.


"If you're for Christ, you can't straddle the fence," Wilson said of Weatherford. "He knew it was wrong."

Christ didn't come to Earth to enhance racial cohesiveness. Wilson's attitude is an epic example of the social gospel heresy. The mission of Christ and His church on Earth is not to stamp out racial prejudices.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

Are you this dense?The

Are you this dense?

The couple did precisely what you claimed YOU WOULD HAVE DONE.


They believe it was racial discrimination and were "disappointed"

They never advocated government get involved.

Any disagreement you have is merely your opinion.

It has nothing to do with libertarian-ism.

By the way, my opinion is you're sort of a racist.

There you go, judging

There you go, judging demographics instead of individuals. Definitely not the teachings of Ron Paul or libertarian minded ideology. I think your time would be better spent elsewhere.

That judgement is based on individuals

that I have met, come in contact with and read about as in the above case. Mises referred to it as praxeology. You don't have to have a statistic to predict behavior when it occurs over and over. For instance, I can confidently make the statement that in the year 2030, there will be a larger percentage of red-headed Irish babies born than red-headed Italian babies. Just as I can confidently predict as can anybody who studies behavioral patterns that there will be a larger percentage of race-sensitive black individuals in America in 2030 than there will be race-sensitive white individuals in America in 2030. - Praxeology

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

You must be a Christian.

I can tell. You are bashing Blacks and non-Christians in your defense of Christ. Yes, it sounds like I am bashing Christians in my defense. But I am not attaching it to a label about who I am in relation to an institution, ideology, or person that died long ago. I base my viewpoint on the people I meet, how they label themselves, what they say, and how they act.

Let the downvoting commence.

Bashing? What are you talking about?

Do you claim that what I said about blacks is untrue? The reason why I said I would expect that kind of reaction out of non-Christians is because non-Christians tend not to follow the teachings of the Bible.


In other words, it would be natural for non-Christians to get upset and make a big deal about not being allowed to get married in an institution because of racial differences. But, the Christian thing to do would have been for the couple to ask the pastor about who had complained, ask to meet with them and the pastor together and try to reason with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. If the whites who didn't like the idea of blacks getting married in their church still insisted no being stubborn and the pastor refused to tell them they could just stay home during the wedding, then the black couple should have simply found another church to go to and left the situation up to God rather than prattling to the media about it.

Yes, it was unChrist-like for the small group of whites in the church that objected to a black couple marrying in a predominantly white church. But, it was equally unChrist-like for the black couple to make a stink about it to most-likely unbelieving media folks.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

I will have to respectfully and completely disagree

that Blacks people are 'ridiculously sensitive'. In fact, I will go so far as to say they are forced to turn the other cheek more than folks with other colors of skin. Of course I am generalizing.

I also will have to strongly disagree with your next premise about reading the bible. While leaving the DP community out of it, most 'Christians' I meet either have not read the bible or have only read excerpts chosen by their church. Most of them have followed their co-opted leaders down the road of radical Zionism at the expense of lives of the 'enemies' of Israel. Reading the bible has not make me a more virtuous person. Perhaps it helps some. I find contradictions on nearly every page of the New Testament and the Old is worse, for me, than watching a violent, gory, sex obsessed Hollywood movie. I still am trying to figure out why religion, in general, conflates the supernatural, after death experience, and morality.

I work with and live around blacks and whites.

Whites generally can joke about racial differences if such issues ever casually come up and they don't get offended. Blacks on the other hand get uptight and defensive about the littlest things as if they're being personally attacked and I have heard quite a few complain among themselves about how white folks will never accept them. I mean, come on. I could see if this was 1912, but, to still be hung up on acceptance in America in 2012 is totally ridiculous. There will NEVER be a day in this country when every single person will accept every single other person regardless of their culture and/or ethnicity. That's life. That's reality. To expect that is no different than expecting all people everywhere to be nice all the time. That's just not how life works. It should come as no surprise when many whites limit their contact with blacks. It's because they know they have to censor what they say because the slightest thing could hurt their feelings and they'd rather not be offensive.

As far as conflating the supernatural, after death experience and morality, the Bible teaches that human morality can't get a person to Heaven because God requires righteous perfection. Going to Heaven depends solely on whether or not a person believes on Jesus Christ, in which case God imputes the righteousness of Jesus to the believer since the believer's sin was imputed to Jesus on the cross. However, the Christian is taught to live morally and abstain from sin for the purpose of pleasing his or her Savior and Creator.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

The problem "Whiteness" and "Blackness" = often equals behavior

Same is true for "Gayness". That is, "to be" _________ you must act/believe and behave in a certain way. This is all bunk.

People have been confusing behavior with Whiteness, Blackness, Gayness, Asian, Indian, latino, etc.

The problem comes if people express displeasure at certain behaviors. Hence, if you don't accept _______ behavior, you are "against" Gays, Blacks, Whites, etc. No, you are not against them, you are against the behavior.

I particularly like it when there is a "Wonderful confusion" that arises when behaviors and beliefs don't = the skin color or grouping that is use to define people. I recall a soft spoken gentle Italian young man, or a sweet muslim girl who loves ron paul and all he stands for.

Do you recall MSNBC Chris Mathews NOT SHOWING the face and hands of the man in black pants and long sleeve white shirt wearing an AK-15 across his back at the Obama protest? Local stations too where shocked and frankly did not know what to think when they listen to the calm mid-western English coming from this "black man". When he said something like this:

"The Obama people just sit around and say I want this, this, and this and we will just vote and take it from you. Well eventually in America, people will be able to say "no".".... "just because you sick the government on people does not make it morally ok, to steal money from people. Taxation is theft."

This all throws them all for a loop. Notice the black liberal guy and liberal asian reporter trying to "figure him out". And finally, notice the liberal Obama crowd getting the message all backwards when they chant, "Hope not fear".



Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

That guy is awesome.

I love when folks drop their roles. I personally have always tried to stay away from playing or making an identity of roles. Perhaps the Blacks I know are not as sensitive as most. But, unfortunately, nearly everyone judges others according to stereotypes. So Blacks have to basically prove themselves with everyone they encounter. Their wages, for instance, are less than 2/3rds of what their White counterpart will receive for similar jobs. So they have to overcome Dixies stereotype of oversensitivity, constantly reinvent themselves to newcomers, and except that they will probably never get paid sufficiently. That in of of itself would be frustrating to most. So I give them extra room to play the victim role. It is my personal libertarian version of Affirmative Action.

When will people grow up?

If it is in fact true this church refused to marry the couple just because of their race, my only question is, when will people grow up? The fact racism, sexism or any other form of bigotry still exists this day in age is beyond ridiculous.

The "definition" of marriage

The "definition" of marriage must not include black people either. It's amazing how the definition always seems to be used against minorities. The defense of liberty means we defend the rights of minorities in all cases. Christianity is slowly weakening itself. I am now non denominational bexause i cant support most church's inability to use logic and consistant interpretation. Too much ignorance, hate and divisivness being perpetrated by so called christians.

Look of the origin of the marriage license.

Marriage licenses were created so that blacks could marry. It is the state view black people as inferior and wards of the state. The license (permission to do something unlawful) is a creation of the state not a church. It is the state that is racist, and the states solution for equality is to treat all the public is dogs beg the state for permission to marry, which is nothing more than a government tax-status and a third party in the marriage. Why religious people even want a marriage license makes no sense, but that is a different subject.

Meanwhile, no church should not want any part of that state system (but they are cowards just like the rest of us). And no church should agree to a marriage of a couple that has only been in attendance for a month. That just foolish. A church is not (or at least should not be) a meaningless government wedding chapel that exists for solely to create a new tax status. A church wedding is to dedicate a couple to Holy Matrimony facilitating the creation of a family institution as a worship act bound to God, which is to be a symbolic reflection on the relationship God has with is church. Why non-religious people want any association with a religious marriage covenant make no sense, but that is a different subject.

I hate to say it, but

I hate to say it, but marriage licenses, or something of the sort, are necessary in this day and age.

In those times, divorce was not only very uncommon, but if it did happen, the man always won. There were also not the issues of child abuse, splitting wealth, etc.

Nowadays, the government/court needs something to go by when it has to arbitrate when there is divorce or some other legal issue.

Moreover, I've found that some things like "hospital visitation rights" are very important. Basically, such a clause protects hospitals from getting sued if they allow specified members to visit the patient. This is because hospitals didn't want to allow anyone to visit the patient due to fear of litigation, and often they can't ask the patient to sign a waiver. And while in an ambulance, you can't exactly tell the EMT, "hey, can you make sure to take me to a hospital that allows x kind of visitation rights"? The system protects hospitals from litigation at some point, while allowing them to go over it if they want.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Perhaps watching too much TV.

As far a hospital visitation rights, you are watching too much tv. It is very rare if anyone is ever even ask if they are family, only in ICU. And all you have to do is say your family. IDs not required, and marriage not required just alleged family.

Second, licenses are for tax status only. Since the state created the status they own it get to decide how to dissolve it. If that is what people want that is fine. Butt this has nothing to do with Matrimony. Why churches even recognize a non-religious marriage is foolishness, but they also have been bought off by the state. Matrimony was created by the church and thus the state has no jurisdiction. It is a religious institution. What the church creates it controls. Thus, for a church to grant divorce only the church that create the marriage could permit it, you would have to seek permission from the membership of that church. Thus you would be accountable to the entire church for your marriage. There is no such thing marriage of convenience within a church. Bottom line Matrimony created by a church needs no permission and has nothing to do with the state create tax code. The state just uses the same name to fool the public.

"As far a hospital visitation

"As far a hospital visitation rights, you are watching too much tv. It is very rare if anyone is ever even ask if they are family, only in ICU. And all you have to do is say you're family. IDs not required, and marriage not required just alleged family."

I guess you are right in that no one is checking ID, but hospitals have strict rules as to who they will let visit a patient, especially if he is critical. You say "alleged" family, as if the hospital would just let anybody go see a patient. States typically have laws that protect direct family members, including spouses. Many states want to extend that coverage to same-sex partners (while a boyfriend/girlfriend visitation would not protect a hospital from litigation).

Matrimony was hardly created by churches. It prexists Christianity by a good bit.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Not quite.

There isn't even a process for IDs. Anyone can visit. How are they going to stop anyone. There isn't even any security, except perhaps in the intercity. We all have been to hospitals including ICU without question. Most places if is even hard to get any attention. So, arguing that restriction is the norm is ridiculous. Show me the stats.

Matrimony is in Genesis so you cannot predate Christianity. Regardless, where were the Licenses?

i agree with you about most churches

however, don't let people ruin your view of God. check out christianwarmongers.com believe me, as a christian, i'm a whole lot harder on those who claim the name of Christ than you are.

make sure you know where you're going when you die...cause you'll be dead a whole lot longer than you're alive

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Property Rights?

This may be an example.


reedr3v's picture

Since churches get special privileges from

government (yes I KNOW everybody should be tax exempt but as it is they are afforded "special" privileges) the assertion of private property "rights" seems muddled, at least in law courts. Assuming the rationale for exemption is a perceived public service, this sort of discrimination disqualifies their protected public status IMO.

Only true in government created churches.

and other non-profit corporations like planned parenthood, Greenpeace, etc. which no one ever seems to complain about.

Nevertheless, real historical churches have no special privileges. They are not tax exempt, they are not-taxable. The state has no jurisdiction.


Get tax deductions, does this mean this arrangement with government modify their property rights?


reedr3v's picture

Clearly the Gov. shouldn't be able to pick and

choose tax relief recipients. No taxes is the answer, as I initially stated. Yet if churches do use their supposed "public benefit" role to obtain special competitive privileges ( cheap land, no property tax?,) making it easier to build lovely "public" spaces and buildings than, say, a commercial rent-a-chapel, that at least calls into question their claim as public benefactors when excluding minorities IMO. If the rent-a-chapel has the same tax breaks, no problem; let the bigots serve their minor market share and let the commercial chapels compete on an equal playing field and win far more business.

When you read a story

When you read a story that just sounds unbelievable then there is probably something more to it than what is being told or the story is just a bunch of B.S.

I call this story B.S.

Why would you call this a BS

Why would you call this a BS story??? It happened.. and its disgusting racist and unchristian....but then most people are only "christian" on sunday

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

I guarantee you there is more

I guarantee you there is more to the story than what is being told. There is something missing that is not being reported. I am simply stating that the story as it is told is BS. If you take it at face value then you are only giving in to blind and ignorant emotion.

Reread your comment

"But then most people are only "christian" on sunday"

So how does trying to lump all christians into a box you've labeled as not being 'real' christians help the point you're trying to make that people should all be seen as individuals regardless of faith, sex, gender, race, etc? You are doing what you don't like others doing.