A Mississippi wedding venue rejected an interracial couple, citing ‘Christian belief.’ Facing a backlash, the owner apologized.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When LaKambria S. Welch drove to Boone’s Camp Event Hall on Saturday, she was in search of an explanation.
Welch told The Washington Post in an email that her brother and his fiancee had recently been coordinating with the wedding venue in Booneville, Miss., about hosting their upcoming nuptials until they were informed that they were no longer welcome.
Why? Welch said it’s because her brother is black and his bride-to-be is white.
In a now-viral video shared to social media by Welch over the weekend, a woman identified as the event hall’s owner can be seen telling the 24-year-old, “First of all, we don’t do gay weddings or mixed race … because of our Christian race, I mean, our Christian belief.”
By early Tuesday, the clip had amassed more than 2 million views across Twitter and YouTube, with critics slamming the business’s owners as “ hateful racists ” and calling for the venue to be shuttered. Following the backlash, Boone’s Camp Event Hall took down its Facebook page and its owner penned a lengthy apology , which, in part, chronicled her realization that “biracial relationships were NEVER mentioned in The Bible!” The video was first reported on by the website Deep South Voice .
“To all of those offended, hurt or felt condemn by my statement I truly apologize to you for my ignorance in not knowing the truth about this,” the now-deleted apology read. “My intent was never of racism, but to stand firm on what I ‘assumed’ was right concerning marriage.”
Boone’s Camp Event Hall could not be reached for comment late Monday.
Welch told The Post that her brother and his fiancee had already arranged a date to look at the venue in northeast Mississippi when the couple received a message from one of the owners: They weren’t going to be accommodated anymore, the owner allegedly wrote, citing her Christian beliefs as justification.
Hoping to “gain clarity” on the owner’s beliefs, Welch said she and her mother went to the event hall. Shortly after arriving, Welch started questioning the owner, all while recording the brief interaction.
“When she explained that she doesn’t do the two specific type of weddings, I felt myself starting to shake,” said Welch, referencing the woman’s views on gay and interracial marriages. Welch added, “… just hearing it gave me chills.”
In the video, Welch explains to a soft-spoken woman in a gray T-shirt that her family is Christian. “So what in the Bible tells you that …” Welch begins to ask, before the woman interrupts, saying, “Well, I don’t want to argue my faith.”
The woman continues: “We just don’t participate. We just choose not to.”
“Okay, so that’s your Christian belief right?” Welch presses.
“Yes, ma’am,” the woman responds.
In 2016, Mississippi passed the first law of its kind that protects “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” about same-sex marriages, extramarital sex and people who identify as transgender. The law, however, does not mention race.
Interracial marriage has been legal in the United States since 1967 when the Supreme Court reached its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia. In 2015, 17 percent of newlyweds in the United States were part of a mixed-race couple, a significant increase from 3 percent in 1967, according to the Pew Research Center . But a recent study found that while people said they accepted interracial relationships, the part of their brain that registers disgust was highly active when they were shown photos of the couples.
On social media, the woman in Welch’s video sparked intense criticism, even prompting a response from the City of Booneville.
“The City of Booneville, Mayor, and Board of Aldermen do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or military status,” officials said in a statement posted to Facebook on Monday. “Furthermore, the City of Booneville, Mayor, and Board of Aldermen do not condone or approve these types of discriminatory policies.”
Several people linked the incident to Mississippi’s religious objection law, arguing that although there is no race provision, it lays the groundwork for people to assert that beliefs alone are enough to validate racial discrimination.
“It was only a matter of time before ‘religious protections’ would justify racial discrimination,” one person tweeted . “First, they came for the gays …”
In her apology, the event hall’s owner attempted to explain why she believed the Bible supported her views on interracial marriages, describing how she only recently discovered that wasn’t the case. She began by writing that as “a child growing up in Mississippi” it was an unspoken understanding that people stayed “with your own race.” But then on Saturday, when her husband asked her to point to relevant sections of the Bible, she couldn’t. After spending hours scouring the text and sitting down with her pastor, the owner wrote that she finally concluded that the reasoning behind her decision to turn away Welch’s brother and his fiancee was “incorrect.”
“As my bible reads, there are 2 requirements for marriage and race has nothing to do with either!” the Facebook post read. “All of my years I had ‘assumed’ in my mind that I was correct, but have never taken the opportunity to research and find whether this was correct or incorrect until now.”
She later added: “If I have learned anything from this it would be to know what you’re talking about before you open your mouth! Again … my sincerest apologies to all!"
At least one person said the woman’s “heartfelt apology” warranted forgiveness, but others, including Welch, remained unswayed.
“I am 24 and have been brought up my entire life in a Christian Family; my grandad being a reverend,” Welch wrote in the email to The Post. “If I know that the Bible doesn’t say anything about biracial marriages, she knows too.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
83 visitors
Apparently the owner was mistaken about both the law and the bible.
Well at least she can still be prejudiced against homosexuals and such
I wonder how long it will take certain religious types to proclaim the owner is being persecuted or say the couple getting married should "find another venue," or something like that?
I don't imagine it'll take long
Gordy...It's Mississippi.... Or are you talking about NT?
Both
Gordy, I have no doubts that some moron will defend it, but I'd be hard pressed to believe any defense will be based on closely held religious beliefs.
Lady is chickenshit, and it pisses me off that she hides, or attempts to hide, behind Christianity.
If you're a racist, own it. If it was a good thing, you would not feel the need to justify your decision on other grounds.
The "closely held religious beliefs" is a BS defense to begin with, not to mention a cowardly excuse to be a bigot.
We would have already been hearing it if it were a gay couple being denied. Because it's a clear example of racial discrimination all you hear are crickets from the usual crowd of religious conservative defenders who often claim that white supremacists are few among them, contrary to all evidence.
She was wrong in her original position and I’m glad she came to understand her sin in the way she thought. There are always consequences to sin so she and her business will likely suffer for what she did and that is also appropriate
Not a whole group. I stated "certain" individuals
I have my doubts she's being sincere.
Well, that explains it.
Just a tiny Freudian slip there. Nothing to worry about lol
No such problem here in China:
As Ruth said: "Thy people shall be my people."
She looks very young.
Well, congratulations. At least you didn't insult me THIS time by saying that I have a lovely daughter - that's an improvement. As it happens she was in her mid-forties in that photo, had a teenage daughter, was a divorcee, and most Chinese men have no interest in marrying a woman in that situation. There is a click-bait article shown along the side or under the NT Front Page from time to time about the fact that Asian women seem to stay looking younger for a longer time, and in that regard she qualifies.
Good for you Buzz.
If two people make each other happy, let them be happy.
I did find it ironic though, the words on the podium, Marriage and Adoption, but, i've had young women almost half my age attempt to adopt me, just can't see it working out.
I guess they didn't get the memo that Jesus wasn't white.
I guess they didn't get the memo that Jesus wasn't white.
That's always a controversial topic!
So here's a question for NT's "experts on race":
Jesus was a Jew-- what race are Jews?
Aren't they of all races?
Jesus was a Jew-- what race are Jews?
And while we're on the topic-- what race is a "Palestinian" such as Rashida Tlaib?
The media constantly refers to her as "a woman of colour".
What colour is she-- what race?
And, finally, are Jews and "Palestinians" of different races-- and if so, what races are they?
We can be fairly sure that he is of middle eastern descent, which means that in all likelihood he had dark skin.
I wonder if she had problems with the Queen of Sheba (King Solomon's wife), Zipporah (Moses wife). One just has to wonder what bible she was reading?
When it comes to bigotry, the bible can be used to justify almost anything, if you twist it enough.
Lol unless someone told her I doubt she's aware of either of those biblical characters
One has to wonder if she ever read any bible
Having been raised, partially, in Miss., the event planner's "religious" beliefs are standard operating procedures. In the 50's and 60's, I had aunts and uncles who, because of their religious beliefs, would not associate with blacks, gays, mixed couples (very rare occurrence back then), old folks, non-religious folks, anyone not white or "God-fearing", homeless, etc....
If you look at the info listed in Wikipedia, you'd understand their mindset.
Hi 1st,
This has nothing to do with religion. In fact the bible is full of stories of black or dark skinned people marrying whites. They are using the bible to back their old fashioned bigotry.
As an indian (I am not sure of what side of your family this is that was like this, but I am pretty sure not the indian side), marrying people of different gene pools was considered healthy for the tribe.
I belong to the Shinnacock and you should see how black some of the tribe are. And then there are people who look like me. Most of the tribe is Christian, and none of them feel this way.
So I am guessing this is a pre civil rights gut feeling your elders had and they weren't the indian side of your family.
Same for the Cherokee, and likely many other Tribes. The color of one's skin does not designate the goodness of their heart.
Sadly, it was from 7 of the 17 aunts and uncles. Those 7 have/still say "we ain't got no Injun blood in us" regardless of what the DNA testing shows.
This, exactly. The bible could be used to teach ambiguity since it's absolutely overflowing with it.
The Bible was used to justify slavery.
When it comes to bigotry, the bible can be used to justify almost anything, if you twist it enough.
There you go again . . . quoting Shakespeare!
(My, my...how NT is becoming such a highbrow website 8-)
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
"The christian race." Yes. It is ordained.
It's a race to the bottom and they're winning in Mississippi...
"The christian race."
That's always a controversial topic!
BTW-- what race are Christians?
And while we're on the topic-- what race are Muslims (are Muslims really "people of colour"?)
I think she only apologized and consulted someone in the religious community after losing a lot of business due to people cancelling the venue. If no one had called her out or if she hadn't lost any business nothing would change.
Really hypocritical to deny a Christian mixed race couple.
Or a gay couple too, like certain other businesses.
There's a seed posted now about a homophobic couple refusing to videotape a gay couple's wedding.
Why?
Their money spends just like everybody else's.
I think it's stupid to turn away business.
Of course it's stupid. But ignorance and/or bigotry is a sure sign of stupid.
Yes, for many ignorance and/or bigotry Trumps logic.
In this instance, we see religion as the cause.
Their money spends just like everybody else's.
I think it's stupid to turn away business.
Perhaps.
But not if someone is a devout believer-- after all, Jesus (PBUH) was clearly preaching that certain races were inferior, eh?
if I'm not mistaken, mississippi karma dictates she spend the last 30 seconds of her life watching her business burn to the ground while suspended from a tree in her front yard.
If she's so religious and reads the bible, how come she didn't know this years ago...another faux christian hiding behind her racist biblical claim.
I've found that many fundie Christians don't seem to have bothered reading their bibles. Funny how atheists often know more about Christianity than Christians - learning so much was often what turned us into atheists.
Nonsense. If you had actually read the Bible with an open mind you would have chosen the gift of life in and through Jesus instead of deciding to reject Him and choose hell instead
He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him— the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
John 12:48 NKJV
I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Luke 13:3
“Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! “ Matthew 13:40-43
“But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name
Who owe their birth neither to bloods nor to the will of the flesh [that of physical impulse] nor to the will of man [that of a natural father], but to God. [They are born of God!]” John 1:12,13
If you had actually read the menu with an open mind you would have chosen the gift of life in and through the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of deciding to reject Him and choose parmesan hell instead!
Oh, wait, you don't believe in Parmesan hell? Where your soul is tormented by delicious smelling parmesan but all you ever get fed is dry grated chalk? Well it looks like we've got something in common then, neither of us believes in the others bullshit fantasy place of torment yet we both have exactly the same evidence to support its existence.
I'd go on but I fear it might be taken as proselytizing, though its obvious you have no such fear.
But reading and learning require so much effort, much easier just to be told what to believe and do.
So you don't think hypocrites that claim to live by the teachings of Jesus should be called out?
Then you don't know what hypocrisy is. Here's a hint - nonbelievers are quoting scriptures to show that some believers who would have everybody live according to their scriptures don't bother living by them, themselves. That's the hypocrisy. Pointing out hypocrisy is not hypocrisy.
You don't get to make up your own definitions. Nonbelievers aren't the ones expecting everyone else to abide by scriptures while not doing so themselves. They just recognize it when it happens.
Asking someone who spouts religion constantly what Jesus would do when they also regularly spout attitudes Jesus warned against is not hypocrisy. It is recognizing and calling out hypocrisy.
Jesus called out hypocrites on the regular, if the Bible is to be believed. Especially religious hypocrites. Your logic would paint Jesus as a hypocrite.
One can study the bible and scriptures and know all about them, belief has nothing to do with the knowledge. And turning the light back to the scripture-quoters who go against the tenets of Jesus is highlighting the hypocrisy, using their own measure to show they are full of crap. And how do you know who believes what, you assume liberals don't, but you don't actually know anything about that.
If you're going to call something out, perhaps you should make sure it was actually DONE. Where did anyone quote scripture in this thread?
Again, WHERE did anyone do that in this thread MUVA? You're posting strawmen.
I'd rather dedicate my life to the FSM. Meatballs and garlic bread, yum.
And you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know the meaning of "hypocrisy".
So some say. He's the guy who said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (actually, he recommended a lighter sentence than his dad did) and "before you remove the mote from your brother's eye, first remove the beam from your own."
Ramen.
Yet you continue to misuse it.
Hypocrisy: noun - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Please explain how a non-believer quoting scripture, to point out that someone else who is claiming to live by the bible but isn't, is the hypocrite and not the person claiming to have the moral high ground but not practicing what they preach.
Or did you write your own definition of hypocrite and publish it in the MUVA Dictionary? If so, please share this new definition you invented as your explanation so far has been hilariously convoluted.
Mmmmhmmmm.
Yeah, I'm sure the bigot from the article didn't.
So it pleases you to accuse members of doing shit they didn't do.
That would be great. Please proceed.
Do you mean the 'Ramen' where you add hot water, let it sit a bit, add the packet of spice, stir it in and consume with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a glass of milk on the side?
Pastafarians (those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster) like to end their prayers with "Ramen" (instead of "amen").
How about the people who deliberately misquote scripture...when they do believe in God (PBUH)?
No, the height of hypocrisy is cheating on all three of your wives, not going to church, ever, then claiming to be a good Christian.
And, after all that, claiming that you've done nothing for which you need to repent.
Every living human being has done at least one thing in their life for which they should repent. There is no such thing as a perfect human being.
The problem is, there are those who think they have done nothing to repent for. And they are usually the ones who should repent the most.
She was wrong in her original position and I’m glad she came to understand her sin in the way she thought. There are always consequences to sin so she and her business will likely suffer for what she did and that is also appropriate
I couldn't care less about what you imagine as a "sin" because that doesn't mean shit in our country. She broke our secular laws, that's all I care about. Bringing fantasy "divine law" into it is as useless as her trying to claim it was her religion that required her to refuse them service.
Sin: noun - an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
So I assume you must be worried about the consequences that you will face in the afterl,ife for some of the things yiu've said on NT???
(or are you actually a non-believer..pretending to be a believer?)
White weddings in Mississippi are entertaining.
I think there's a song about that.
I think they call that "Treason Pie"...
I wonder if the bridesmaids back there chose their own denim jumpers or if it was the brides choice.
when I was a waiter back in the 80's, some racist goober clown in my section was seething over a mixed race couple sat a few tales away. he told me in his confederate drawl that where he was from they both would be hanging for being together in public. I bribed a busboy $5 to "accidentally" dump a full bus tub in his lap. oops, free meal, no tip, buh bye, new customer.
don't ask me what I did when some rightwing asshat yelled at me to take his mug of beer back to the bar and "put a head on it!". yes sir!
the lesson here? don't piss off any servers.
So you paid a busboy to assault somebody?
[deleted]
That comment violates the forum rules. You cant make sweeping generalizations about a group like "liberals" .
Two conservative peanuts went to New York, one was a salted...
Give it up, getting your panties in a bunch over someone dumping a tub of dirty dishes in some worthless piece of shit bigots lap nearly 40 years ago isn't going to give you any closure, and neither will standing up for all the bigots today regardless of the cover Trump has provided them.
Personally, I wouldn't have had the bus boy dump the tub on him, I would have simply ignored him while I gave extra attention to the couple he was upset over. Then I would have given the couple a complimentary hors d'oeuvre and only served the bigot after they were done eating, paid and had left, if the bigot had stuck around that long. I wouldn't deny him service, he'd just be last in line to be served.
No I won't give it up because his comment is part of an ongoing issue on the left. This idea that if you don't like someone's opinion, you are free to attack them because you see them as a Pos anyways, Right? Wrong. That "bigot" is a human being that deserves the right to his opinion same as anyone else. You treating him differently is no different than him treating them differently. You just think it's right when people you agree with do it, when its not. The left has a culture problem and it's time people point it out
Nobody's forcing her to be a bigot, let alone an uninformed one. That's her choice, and her choice to be a bigot led her to treat others badly. She was rightly called out on both her bigotry and her lack of even a flimsy excuse for her bigotry.
How so? Please be specific.
What lead you the conclusion that is an exclusively 'left' issue?
I for one treat everyone who I disagree with the same. Just because I 'attack' their opinion, doesn't mean I am 'treating them differently'.
BTW, the reason that a bigot treats 'them differently' is usually because of animus against a group, NOT of an opinion.
How did you get that from DP's comment?
Please proceed. It would be help the discussion if you did so by posting specifics rather than sweeping generalizations.
not really, it was a seafood restaurant and most bus tubs were filled with assorted leftover slop from other tables. my rationale was that if he was going to speak garbage he could wear it too.
gee, I thought that was what we were doing
Scum deserves chum
LOL ... a much more succinct statement. thanks
Some people are calling out bigotry.
And some people are defending bigotry, and trying to paint the bigots (and themselves) as victims of bigotry, and they think people are actually buying into their sob stories.
If they are a private business I don't see the issue. Nobody does anything when facebook or youtube bans users because they are conservative or advocate far right agendas.
If they were a private business there would be no issue, unfortunately they are a public business and as such have to operate within our secular laws.
Race is a protected status. Political affiliation is not.
But only some is illegal.
Well I imagine most interracial couples vote dem so Maybe the store owner should just change her approach and say she doesn't serve liberals.
You'd have her turn down somebody like Clarence Thomas?
Nice.
probably not, as long as he had a name tag on and wore a tricorner hat, I'm guessing
So bigots are human beings that deserve the right to their opinion same as anyone else but liberals aren't and don't. Got ya.
Yup.
Some folks fight fire with fire. And it's a bit funny to read or listen to the complaints when that shoe switches to the other foot.
Ok well this is becoming simply personal and political bickering, so we're done here. Thanks everyone for participating