Pastor Refuses to Marry Couple an Hour Before Ceremony Because Bride’s Dress is Too Sexy

[SecularMotion]

Apostle Michael Canty of the Truth Ministries Holiness Church recently refused to marry a couple mere hours before the ceremony was to be performed. His reasoning? The bride’s dress was too sexy:

[center][/center]

The wedding scheduled Saturday, August 10th, was scheduled for 3pm. At 2pm, the pastor greeted the bride and groom when he noticed the bride’s dress. According to the bride’s mother, the pastor jokingly asked ‘where is the other half of the dress?’ Not thinking anything of it, the family laughed it off and continued applying make-up on the bride. Around 2:30pm the pastor asked a leader of the church to ask the bride and the family about the other part of her dress. The bride informed the leader ‘this is it’. The leader reported the news to the pastor and then the pastor informed personally the bride and groom at separate times he could not perform the wedding with the bride in her selected dress. The pastor told the bride she would have to cover up her breast area and find a way to add length to the dress. The bride informed the pastor there is no way to accomplish this with so short of a notice and she has to wear her dress. Then the pastor informed her he would not be able to perform the ceremony then walked back to his office.

It is no secret that religions tend to preach “modesty” to women, but this is downright ridiculous. Wedding days are supposed to be a celebration of a couple, not an opportunity to be slut-shamed by a pastor.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/10/pastor-refuses-to-marry-couple-an-hour-before-ceremony-because-brides-dress-is-too-sexy/

[cbayer]

1. I'm not sure I am buying this.

Neither the bride nor the groom were members of this church.

Now, if I were going to get married in a church I wasn't familiar with and were choosing to wear something this provocative (which the bride said she purposefully chose because it was so different), I might want to run it by the officiant first.

I'm wondering if they didn't purposefully set this up.

Does the church have the right to draw a line somewhere? What if the couple wanted to get married in the nude? What if the pastor is sexually stimulated and feels that he can not do this without embarrassing himself, if you catch my drift.

I think the mistake the pastor made was in not allowing someone else to go ahead and officiate. Apparently someone else offered and he said no. Seems to me that would have solved the problem.

[trotsky]

2. I think this comment on the story best addresses your attempt to blame the woman and/or couple.

It doesn't matter where the church was, what kind of church it was, what her dressed looked like, whether they were members of the church...what matters is that is was the bride and grooms wedding day, they rented the church, they paid for a service, for whatever reasons, the facts are just that. The pastor agreed long before the wedding to perform the service, if she was wearing a thong bikini, he should have still performed the service. Plain and simple. Unless the bride and groom signed documentation that stated they had to wear certain clothing, there is no binding reason why she couldn't wear that dress. It's well within laws for public display. The whole idea that the pastor gets righteous an hour before the wedding when he agreed to perform a wedding to non members of the church of whom he probably had little interaction anyway, is in itself a sacrilege. This is just another example of the hypocritical, judgmental foundation that supports religious doctrine. Completely inane and without merit.

[hrmjustin]

12. The church has the right to say no. It is a religious ceremony.

[trotsky]

16. Yet also a contractual agreement.

The pastor broke that agreement. And even when given a chance to still honor the agreement while not personally having to perform the ceremony, he declined.

[hrmjustin]

17. The marriage is a sacrament. That comes first before any agreement. Personally I would not have

allowed that dress if I were a pastor of a church. She should have told him what the dress was.

[trotsky]

19. I don't agree that the woman should be blamed. n/t

[hrmjustin]

21. I do. She walked into the house of God with a dress like that she should expect an argument.

She should have warned the minister. It was totally her fault.

[Goblinmonger]

25. I would like to think that if there is a god

he would think that dress is smokin' hot and be perfectly fine with it.

Sounds like your god is kind of a prude.

[qazplm]

30. maybe but that's the point

freedom of religion means when you are performing a religious sacrament, you kinda get to have your religious sacrament fit your religious beliefs...the idea that you should force a preacher to marry someone in a religious ceremony because you disagree with their religious beliefs is alanis morrisette levels of ironic.

[Goblinmonger]

32. You mean it's not ironic?

Sorry. Love Alanis. There is maybe one thing in that song that is actually irony. I cover it every year in my English class.

I was more trying to make a point that we generally create god in our own image. I understand what you are saying fully. Religions should be able to marry whomever they want. The rest of us should be free to call them idiotic. That goes for this church as well as the RCC and any other religious sect that won't marry gays.

[digonswine]

62. Is it the fly in the wine?

I realize this is off-topic, but was wondering.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Guy afraid of flying that does and dies

The rest are just really shitty things.

And I found this video this summer and will show it in class--"We fixed it for you, Alanis."

[digonswine]

65. I thought-

the plane guy would be ironic if he avoided a safe flight, and subsequently croaked in a car accident.
I guess that's why I teach science and not English.

I am reminded about right after 9-11, when some declared the death of irony. I still don't get what was meant by that and it seemed short-sighted at best.
Don't feel like you have to break that one down, too-if you don't want!

[trotsky]

38. But is it the pastor's religious beliefs that the dress was too revealing?

Or just his own prudishness?

If a pharmacist thinks it's slutty for women to use birth control, does he have a right not to dispense it to anyone?

[hrmjustin]

41. Houses of worship have the right to say no.

[trotsky]

42. Do they have the right to break agreements?

Why do they get special rights?

[hrmjustin]

44. I would assume if they did sign an agreement that moral issues were included with the contract.

My church reserves the right to say no at anytime.

[hrmjustin]

40. I do not presume to speak for God but I think that dress was over the top and the church had the

right to say no.

[skepticscott]

43. "Over the top"

meaning what, exactly? Do you have specific, rational, objective criteria for what a woman should be allowed to wear at her wedding, or is this just your own prudishness? How is the sanctity of marriage or the marriage ceremony violated by a dress? Do you actually think that a few extra inches of skin are more important than whether the couple was truly and deeply committed? Seriously?

[hrmjustin]

45. I think that dress is inapproriate in Church. I have the right to my opinion.

I am not a prude at all.

[skepticscott]

46. So you have no answers to any of my questions?

You simply presume that your "opinion" should govern here, and that the pastor had the right to do this because you say so?

You're entitled to think what you want, but not to have that opinion govern or restrict the actions of others without a more concrete argument.

[hrmjustin]

47. Most churches when they draw up a marriage agreement have moral stipulations that allow them to stop

the wedding if they feel the need to do that. It is not about my morality or yours. The Pastor said her dress was not appropriate for his church. If the laws in the state say he had to go through with it then the pastor and the church will have to answer for it, but I doubt that the state will make them. Houses of worship have some latitude when dealing with rites and rituals of their religions.

BTW I gave an opinion. I never said anyone had to obey it. You give your opinions all the time and I never give you a hard time about it.

[skepticscott]

48. You said

I do not presume to speak for God but I think that dress was over the top and the church had the right to say no.

In other words, you think your opinion should govern what other people should do, or not be allowed to do.

And was there a marriage agreement with moral stipulations in place here? If so, please produce it. Otherwise, why is that anything but an irrelevant deflection?

[hrmjustin]

49. Pay attention! I said I think. I never said my opinion is the final word.

I don't have to produce a damn thing. Get it yourself if you feel the need to debate this.

[skepticscott]

51. When you'd like to continue

an adult discussion, let me know.

If you're going to foam at the mouth when asked to justify the relevance of your arguments, I won't waste my time on this thread any more.

[hrmjustin]

55. .

[skepticscott]

58. As I said

You can choose to elevate the discussion or drag it down. Look through this sub-thread and ask yourself honestly which you've done. Ask yourself which of your posts are those of a thoughtful and respectful poster and which are not. Ask yourself, did this post advance the search for the truth?

[hrmjustin]

59. That is rich coming from you.

[skepticscott]

60. And yet another post

which does nothing to advance the discussion. I can understand your wanting to make this about me, rather than about the issues at hand, since you can't seem to defend your own statements, but a host should epitomize the change they demand from others in the room, wouldn't you agree?

[hrmjustin]

61. This is just too funny!

Ok what do you want me to defend?

[skepticscott]

66. Start with

"I don't have to produce a damn thing. Get it yourself if you feel the need to debate this."

Tell us how that was a thoughtful, non-pissy response that advanced the discussion.

[hrmjustin]

68. You said;

"In other words, you think your opinion should govern what other people should do, or not be allowed to do."

I never said my opinion is what should govern anyone. I gave an opinion which you do all the time. Your words pissed me off and I gave it back to you.

If you wish people to respond nicely to you perhaps you should learn how to be nice.

[skepticscott]

69. Read my post 48 again, in it's entirety

Instead of just cherry-picking it. I provided the exact quote of yours wherein you stated that the church had the right to violate their legal agreement to perform the ceremony and that the couple should not have been allowed to get married, and gave no other justification than your opinion. I gave you the opportunity to provide further, objective justification, and you failed to provide it.

That's what happens in a normal discussion of issues, which this was part of. If THAT pissed you off, you seriously need a thicker skin for this room.

You tried to introduce an argument about "moral stipulations" in marriage agreements to bolster your case, even though you had no evidence that was remotely relevant or applicable in this particular case. When you were asked to show whether any such thing existed here, you responded:

"I don't have to produce a damn thing. Get it yourself if you feel the need to debate this."

So I'll ask again..did that elevate the discussion? Did it make it more, or less civil?

[hrmjustin]

70. Did they have a contract?

[okasha]

71. "The contract" appears to be an invention

of commenters here and in the original publication. Even if there were a signed agreement, the "reasonable person" standard could be invoked to show that Bridezilla herself violated it by appearing for the ceremony in a costume that a reasonable person would recognize as inappropriate to the place and occasion.

[hrmjustin]

72. Thanks okasha!

Some people seem surprised that I was shocked by the dress. I am not a prude but there are moments for things and this was not the moment for the dress.

[okasha]

74. When a Wiccan high priest

who frequently performs wedding ceremonies for couples wearing no more than a flower garland apiece finds the dress no more appropriate than you do, it's a fairly safe bet you aren't a prude.

[hrmjustin]

75. LOL! Thanks.

[skepticscott]

82. So how is the dress not "appropriate"?

What is the objective standard for appropriateness here? How is the sanctity of marriage or the marriage ceremony violated by a dress? Are a few extra inches of skin more important than whether the couple was truly and deeply committed to each other?

[skepticscott]

79. There was an agreement to perform a service

in exchange for money, under certain conditions. I never called it a "contract", but the agreement was violated nonetheless.

[skepticscott]

80. They had an agreement that a wedding ceremony

was to be performed in that church, on a certain day, and I doubt the minister was doing it for free. I never called it a "contract", but legally enforceable contracts do not necessarily have to be in writing.

And I note that you're still dodging simple and direct questions.

[hrmjustin]

81. And if they took it to court I think the courts will rule for the church. The dress was not

appropriate for the house of the Lord.

[skepticscott]

83. Another "opinion"? Based on what?

Can you show us where "the Lord" set standards for what type of clothing is "appropriate" for a wedding ceremony? Can you show us that there is anything more than religiously based squeamishness here?

[hrmjustin]

85. It was in a church.

[skepticscott]

86. In answer to the rather snarky question that you deleted

Yes, I did comprehend that this was a religious ceremony in a church. Show me the standard, outside of your "opinion" for "appropriate" dress in a church, not at a regular worship service, but at a person's own wedding.

And btw, I asked four questions in the post you're responding to. You answered none of them.

[hrmjustin]

87. Just because it is their wedding does not mean they can dress in anything they want.

I think the standards in church are understood. Maybe you should go to a church and ask them their opinion. I am sure 99 out of 100 will agree with me.

Sorry I got a bit nasty in my self deleted post.

[skepticscott]

88. As noted, this was not a regular worship service with members

It was this woman's wedding, with her friends and guests the ones in attendance. Show me what "standards" are "understood" in all churches. And no, repeating again that it's your "opinion" does not suffice.

And you still haven't answered any of my direct and simple questions. Why not?

[hrmjustin]

89. If you know church law you know that NO church service is private. Church is open for the people

the people of God. Marriage is a sacrament not just a thing you do.

[skepticscott]

91. Can you cite me the "law" for this church?

And tell me how many of their members crashed this wedding?

Really, your dodges are getting tedious. Since you refuse to answer simple direct questions, I can only assume you have no interest in a useful discussion.

[hrmjustin]

93. Do you not get that a church would have an issue with this dress?

I do not know the canon law of this church. I am talking in general.

Are you enjoying this or are you genuinely surprised by my or the churches reaction?

[cbayer]

63. You know, Justin is one of the kindest people on DU.

He is welcoming, civil and just generally nice to other people.

You may disagree with him or you may just see him as an easy target for bullying, but what you are doing here is uncalled for.

So why don't you just back off.

[skepticscott]

67. If you can show where I've been less civil than he has

in this sub-thread, let's see it. I've asked him to back up what he's said, and to justify the relevance of the arguments he's made. What part of that doesn't belong in a reasonable discussion?

[hrmjustin]

73. .

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. Frankly, it's you who's dragging the level of conversation down

First, you accuse hrmjustin of 'prudishness'. Then you come up with a strawman - "You simply presume that your "opinion" should govern here" - when he clearly said "I think...", but didn't say that thought should 'govern'. You repeated the strawman - "you think your opinion should govern what other people should do, or not be allowed to do. " The you say "When you'd like to continue an adult discussion, let me know" - that's insulting.

You have consistently tried to make this subthread about hrmjustin.

"Ask yourself which of your posts are those of a thoughtful and respectful poster and which are not. Ask yourself, did this post advance the search for the truth?"

Yours are not.

[hrmjustin]

94. .

[skepticscott]

95. Yes, he said

He thinks that things should be done a certain way and that people should and shouldn't be allowed to do certain things. That's his opinion and it is about controlling the actions of others.

I've given him ample opportunity to show that this is about anything other than prudishness and the fundamental religious uneasiness with anything that smacks of sexuality. Ive asked him over and over why a few inches of skin is more important to a marriage ceremony than the love and commitment of the people involved. He failed over and over to even attempt an answer or to provide any objective standards for what would be appropriate in such a situation. He's free to hold any opinion he likes and he's free to feel uneasy about that dress, but he is wrong to say that things should be done a certain way in real life based on nothing else. This is just another manifestation of one the biggest problems with religion: "My religious belief/god/sacred book/faith dictates this, therefore other people should have to abide by it".

And when someone is asked to provide evidence to show the relevance of the point they're trying to make, and responds with "I don't have to produce a damn thing. Get it yourself if you feel the need to debate this.", that's not part of an adult discussion. Do you agree or disagree?

I've tried to make this about the issue involved, and hrmjustin's claims and opinions regarding that issue. He, on the other hand, has consistently avoided doing so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. I disagree; it's you who has been insulting, not hrmjustin

Your remark about 'adult conversation' was an insult. "I don't have to produce a damn thing. Get it yourself if you feel the need to debate this" is a perfectly valid thing to say. Don't pretend for a seconds that 'damn' offends you. trotsky introduced the idea there could have been an 'agreement' in the thread, and it was not central to hrmjustin's opinion (which, yet again, you are misrepresenting); it's fine for him to say 'find it yourself if you think it's important'.

No, you have been mis-stating hrmjustin's posts several times, and are going after him. You're trying to make it personal. hrmjustin is not talking about "controlling the actions of others"; that is complete bollocks.

[skepticscott]

97. Thanks very much for that

I understand things quite well now.

Have a nice day.

[okasha]

50. If you are (and I don't believe you are)

you have some unusual company.

I sent that link to a CUUPS friend of mine who is a Gardnerian Wiccan priest duly authorized to perform marriages in the state of Texas. His comment was that he'd have been happy to marry the twit and her no doubt equally twittish groom naked, "but not in that butt-ugly dress."

Gardnerians, of course, are the group who typically practice "skyclad," so I don't think a case can be made that he's a prude because he finds the dress inappropriate.

[indigoth]

76. Actually it's not

No one can even perform a wedding in this country without the governments approval. Where do you get a marriage license? I'll give you a hint ... It's not a church

[hrmjustin]

77. In this country houses of worship have the right to choose who they will marry.

[cbayer]

78. You are correct about the civil aspects of the ceremony,

and if a couple meets the civil requirements, the civil system has no right or reason to refuse them.

But the religious aspect of the ceremony is a whole different kettle of fish.

Some scaremongers from the right have argued that churches will be forced to marry GLBT couples if these marriages are legalized. They will not. Churches will still be able to set their own rules for who they will and will not marry.

[okasha]

8. Avoiding surprises like this--to couple or officiant--

is one of the reasons for wedding rehearsals.

Edited to add: it's also one of the reasons that the Episcopal church will not marry a couple unless at least one of them is a Piskie. It discourages "church shopping." Rug can check me on this, but I believe the Catholic church has a similar policy.

[cbayer]

10. Particularly if you plan to do something a bit, er, irregular.

FWIW, I think the dress is hideous, but I think she has the right to wear whatever she wants. But she doesn't necessarily have the right to wear it wherever she wants.

I think the Catholic church has some pretty stringent pre-marital meeting rules.

[okasha]

11. The dress would freeze Gorgons.

Anyone with two neurons to rub together should realize that Holiness churches are very conservative. Either the couple really are that stupid or you're right and something's fishy here.

[demosincebirth]

28. Fishy as a stunt

[rexcat]

33. It depends on the parish priest...

My wife was catholic when we got married in the church and the priest knew I was an atheist. Over the course of our engagement the priest and I had some wonderful conversations. We were both living out of state at the time at different schools and in different states. We had several meetings with him and he waived the pre-marriage classes because of distance, etc. He knew my wife very and trusted her judgment. He was somewhat of a rouge in the church. Probably the reason he had a parish in Mims, FL, where I do believe the catholic hierarchy felt he would do the least amount of "harm." His judgment seems to have been good considering we have been married for over 32 years to the consternation of my in-laws. My wife's sister is on her third marriage. She took the classes, the church annulled her first marriage, got remarried in the church the second time. After her second divorce she gave up on the church thing.

[cbayer]

36. One of my sons is about to marry into a very, very catholic family.

I have not yet heard whether he will convert or not, but I suspect he will. I don't think he will be a catholic in heart, but he will be one culturally, and that's going to be important.

[rexcat]

37. No one would ever say that I am...

culturally a catholic . I married my wife in her first year of graduate school. Her graduate school, post-doc and professional experiences changed her. Of course being married can and will also change you. I had some affect on her shifting of positions but her other life experiences in were also influential. Unfortunately I received a lot of the blame from the in-laws. They expected everything to remain the same after she left home. Boy were they ever disappointed!

About 10 years ago she abandoned the catholic church because of the sexual abuse of children by priests. This had more to do about our twin boys than anything else. The boys are atheists but that is not discussed with the in-laws. I think they have an inkling but do not want to confront the issue. They have made it very clear their distaste for atheists and the boys are very aware of their grandparents religious opinions. They know better than to say anything to their grandparents about their lack of "faith."

I hope your son does not go through what I went through with my in-laws. It definitely made the life-trip harder than it had to be.

[cbayer]

39. I think my son will be fine.

While his fiancé's mother is pretty devout, her father is a catholic in name only. He does what he needs to and does it gladly, but I doubt that if he has any faith at all that it runs very deep.

It's a pretty classic New Orleans catholic family. The kids will go to catholic schools and through all the different rituals. Whether they are believers or not won't make all that much difference. Nobody really talks much about that part of it. They are expected to participate as a family, but not much else is expected.

Her parents have never asked me or anyone else in the family about our beliefs or lack of beliefs. It's just not discussed. I think if someone made a big deal of it, like felt they had to proclaim that they held different beliefs or no beliefs at all, there might be an issue. But, in general, there is a very laissez faire attitude about the whole thing.

But I will happily go to the wedding mass and any other functions involving the church, particularly once there are children. And it won't bother me a bit.

[hrmjustin]

13. In my parish one member has to be a member of the parish to get married there.

[xfundy]

3. "the pastor informed her he would not be able to perform the ceremony then walked back to his office

...where he brought up some porn on his computer.

[Scuba]

4. Child porn.

[xfundy]

5. I put that in my first draft

but took it out, figuring it may cause some here to get the vapors.

[Scuba]

6. The truth does cause some to get apoplexic, but truth is truth.

I have no knowlege of the clergy person in question, but pedophilia in religion is a world wide problem. More light, more light, more light.

[hrmjustin]

14. He has the right to say that dress is not appropriate.

[rug]

7. You should put the caption with the picture: "Image of the bride’s dress from the manufacturer"

Unless you just want to post a picture of a blonde model.

[dimbear]

9. I wish I had been at that wedding. I would have happily stepped in and tied the knot for them.

Always helpful. My motto.

[struggle4progress]

15. ... hmmm ...

... Two days later the couple is still not married and is currently looking into options to recoup moneytheir family lost with travel, food, and other expenses. The Truth Ministries Holiness Church was established 14 months ago and currently rent a converted shoe store for worship services ...
Pastor Refuses to Perform Ceremony because of Bride’s ‘Sexy Dress’
Posted by: AmericaPreachers in Christian News, Speak Out! August 11, 2013

[cbayer]

18. I saw that as well. If they had the whole family there, why didn't they just get

someone to do a civil ceremony. It's not like this was a particularly beautiful location or anything.

I smell scam.

[struggle4progress]

22. It's weird at best: "we've decided to get married in a new small church that

meets in a rented space that used to be a shoe store, even though we don't really have any connection to it"

[cbayer]

23. If it's publicity they wanted, they got it, but it's not all positive by any means.

[Goblinmonger]

26. You missed it above

it was the house of god they were in.

[struggle4progress]

29. If you are an atheist and do not think there are any gods, then isn't your statement meaningless

by your own standards? And when you make statements that you yourself regard as nonsense, why should anyone else treat those statements of yours seriously?

[Goblinmonger]

31. I'm just saying that other posters in the group

feel that this was the house of god. I don't think it is your or my place to contradict that. Respect beliefs and all that. If I (or Dawkins or some other atheist) were to make fun of this church, many believers in this group (likely you included) would be tut-tutting the evil nasty atheists. I'm just asking that you extend the same respect you and others seem to want from atheists.

But I'm quite sure your post was you being deliberately obtuse.

[struggle4progress]

34. If you're so gravely concerned by my #15, perhaps you should contact the newspaper

to complain, since the post is mainly a quote from a news story

If, on the other hand, you are gravely concerned by my #22, in which I find the couple's behaviour odd, perhaps you should review just how incredibly difficult it is to get married in Texas: the couple actually needs to tell other people that they are husband and wide while living together a while -- and they're married! A formal wedding is even more difficult: they need to find some official of a religious organization authorized to perform weddings or (if they prefer) just about any judge or retired judge. Of the various weddings I have attended in Texas -- mostly involving persons who did not call themselves "Christian," I might add -- the happy couple in every case chose a presiding official who they knew shared their views and discussed ceremony details in advance

But let me add that, as usual, of course, I'm touched by the respect you show for everyone, as evidenced, for example, by your sensitive gem "I'm quite sure your post was you being deliberately obtuse"

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Takes pretty much no effort at all to get a Judge to do this for you.

Adoptions and weddings. About the only bright spots in their days, to be honest. Everything else a judge has to do is pretty much wade through shit.

Being unable to find a suitable option in 2 days has lost these nitwits my benefit of the doubt.

[struggle4progress]

24. Texas Family Code

§ 2.202 PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY
(a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony: (1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest; (2) a Jewish rabbi; (3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; and (4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state ...

§ 2.401. PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE
(a) In a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and
woman may be proved by evidence that: (1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as provided by this subchapter; or (2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married ...

So in Texas if they decide not to find somebody to marry them, all they really need to do is live together and tell other folk they're husband and wife

[rexcat]

35. When my sister got married the first preacher...

refused to officiate because we were drinking beer prior to the rehearsal. The rehearsal and wedding was outdoors at her house but said preacher had a hissy fit and said he could not officiate at the wedding because of the liquor. We were able to find another preacher (retired) to officiate and beer or other alcoholic beverages were not an issue with him. That was done in less than one day. That happened in the mid-70's in Western North Carolina where she still lives and is married to the same guy.

[SheilaT]

27. I agree with those who say there's something a bit odd in this entire story.

Surely these people are not so ignorant as to not understand that a church like that might be very conservative. On the other hand, I never fail to be astonished at how ignorant some people are.

And if the essential point was to be married, they could have all gotten down to city hall or wherever, had a civil ceremony, and then the party they wanted.

I have my own opinions about that dress, but since I'm not connected in any way to the bridal party or the church, my personal opinions don't matter.

[gopiscrap]

52. What an ass, I think the dress is hot!!!

[cbayer]

53. I think you are missing the point here.

[gopiscrap]

54. I was being sarcastic, sorry

I don't have any patience with fundies!

[cbayer]

56. I think you are still missing the point. I don't think this has as much to do with fundies

as it does with the bride and groom.

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. IAWHW God created woman naked...So it would seem to me that god must approve of God's own creation.

and as long as the woman is wearing her skin, she should be OK.

The Pastor should have stated a dress code in the contract when he agreed to marry them.

[rrneck]

90. Well, y'know.

The church has the right to refuse service to anyone, but they need to at least rise to the level of a Taco Bell warning about the approved dress code.



The church agreed to marry the couple and if they took their responsibility as an organization that sanctifies marriage the joining of two people in holy matrimony should trump the length of the brides skirt.