What's new

White Church Bans Black Couple From Getting Married

Colorado is in the southeast? Where exactly did you go to school, Bears?

This was in Massachusetts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/erica-winchester-mailman-video_n_782864.html

This was in Illinois: http://racismdaily.com/2011/08/05/illinois-man-sues-jiffy-lube-over-racist-anti-semitic-photos/

And here's one from Florida: http://gawker.com/5929692/disney-world-guest-ordered-to-change-his-clothes-because-he-looked-too-much-like-santa-claus?popular=true


It ain't a north/south/red state/blue state thing. Look hard enough, and just about anywhere you'll manage to find trash...

Eric, your 'reaching' !

I know, that YOU know, that I was talking about the couple being discriminated against by a church in the " SE " quadrant,...N O T..."what the price of WHEAT was YESTERDAY " !

dell, and the name of the 'boys' in Western Pa IS ............ ??????
 
Easy for you to say from your armchair. In the Baptist church, a minister works directly as an at-will employee, reporting to the church's elected directors and members.

It's the congregation's facility, not his. Holding the wedding when told not to would have been trespassing.

Maybe this would count as a case where civil disobedience should be used, but if you get the wedding party arrested on their wedding day, that's not going to help matters much. The minister was told he would be fired for standing his ground -- he's the one looking for a new job and moving his family, not you. Instead of taking that risk, he stood his ground in a different way that ultimately got the issue, fixed instead of just swept under the carpet.

The issue was addressed thru the right channels. The wedding went on without any use of handcuffs during the ceremony, and the original church took care of what was likely one or two individuals overstepping their authority. No violence, no breaking the law, and no embarrassment to anyone except the church directors who were in the wrong.


He was chosen as their 'leader' for lack of a better description. He chose not to address the situation in his congregations church. I see no indication he addressed the issue of the 'minority' of members. The wedding took place in a church that was more tolerant. I for one would not want to be associated with a church that has members that are clearly racist. As far as I am concerned it would be a me or them issue. I would not be in the same building with them. If that is what he did, more power to him, if he is still in a building with them and the other members of the congregation still accept the racists in their congregation without any realization that their beliefs are wrong, then they all deserve each other as far as I am concerned.
 
Where does the right to bear arms enter in to a conversation about racism in a church or Chick Fil A making a comment about same sex marriage?

You havent heard the one about the black homophobe, born again Christian, with CCL (carrying a Glock .40) walks into a Chick-Fil-A and demands a cheeseburger?
 
Are you talking about the transvestite or the Black Panther? I keep getting them confused.
 
He was chosen as their 'leader' for lack of a better description. He chose not to address the situation in his congregations church.

I guess that's just ignorance on your part. A minister teaches, may lead worship, and offers support as needed to the members. They don't establish policy, determine how the facility is to be used, decide who is admitted as a member, or have a say in how money gets spent. That's what the elders/trustees do. Again, they serve at the will of the elders/trustees. Trying to drive a power play won't work.

Further, paid staff, including the pastor or minister, typically are not members. It's seen as a conflict of interest to be electing the elders or trustees who ultimately determine your pay or whether you keep your job.

Lastly, did you actually read to the end of the article?

Church officials say they welcome any race into their congregation. They now plan to hold internal meetings on how to move forward, should this situation occur again.

"I was prepared to go ahead and do the wedding here just like it was planned, and just like we agreed to," said Weatherford. "I was just looking for an opportunity to be able to address a need within our congregation and at the same time minister to them."

He was looking for an opportunity to address the need, and minister to them. It's a lot easier to minster to a congregation when they're not threatening to fire you for righteous insubordination.
 
I do not know how their church works nor do I care. The only thing I am saying is that I would not be in the same building with people who are admitted racists. If they come forward and admit that they have problems and are seeking counseling then fine. I have seen nothing to indicate that they have or haven't. What I did see missing from the article and your Oh so eloquent response was the indignation that in 2012 there is a church where members said they would not accept a black couple being married in their church. The fact there were enough members to vote the minister out leads me to believe it might be more than a few and may be a little less than a lot. I also find it hard to believe that this was the first time anyone discussed race in the church. Personally, the minister sounds like a coward to me.


Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
 
I do not know how their church works nor do I care. The only thing I am saying is that I would not be in the same building with people who are admitted racists. If they come forward and admit that they have problems and are seeking counseling then fine. I have seen nothing to indicate that they have or haven't. What I did see missing from the article and your Oh so eloquent response was the indignation that in 2012 there is a church where members said they would not accept a black couple being married in their church. The fact there were enough members to vote the minister out leads me to believe it might be more than a few and may be a little less than a lot. I also find it hard to believe that this was the first time anyone discussed race in the church. Personally, the minister sounds like a coward to me.


Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
I agree!
It is insane, and I am at a loss for answers.
B) xUT
 
Not to worry, Not like it happens every day. I am sure we will survive to fight another day. 😛
 
I guess that's just ignorance on your part. A minister teaches, may lead worship, and offers support as needed to the members. They don't establish policy, determine how the facility is to be used, decide who is admitted as a member, or have a say in how money gets spent. That's what the elders/trustees do. Again, they serve at the will of the elders/trustees. Trying to drive a power play won't work.

Further, paid staff, including the pastor or minister, typically are not members. It's seen as a conflict of interest to be electing the elders or trustees who ultimately determine your pay or whether you keep your job.

Lastly, did you actually read to the end of the article?



He was looking for an opportunity to address the need, and minister to them. It's a lot easier to minster to a congregation when they're not threatening to fire you for righteous insubordination.

Eric,
Despite ALL the Baptist info, I would have bet the Farm that a good Scandi like you were LUTHERAN !
 
Bears, next time, feel free to put some money on the table when you make a prediction about me, OK? I need money to get the oil changed on the land yacht.

No, I'm not Baptist or Lutheran.... and it's really nobody's business which denomination I follow.

Knowing how churches are managed and governed is something anyone of faith should look into before deciding to become a member. Baptists are pure congregationalists, whereas Lutherans are more like the Catholics, in that seminary graduates are drafted into a synod (similar to an archdiocese) by a bishop, who in turn assigns those pastors to a congregation.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top