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

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:

Image of the bride’s dress from the manufacturer

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.

Surely the irony of telling someone they look too sexy hours before a ceremony about monogamy is lost on this man.

By refusing to marry this couple, this pastor’s message is loud and clear: Do not judge… lest I find your wedding dress to be too sexy.

"I'm sure it was, but your anecdote is irrelevant."

Franklin Graham: New Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Policy ..."
"While the grandstanding about bathrooms carries on, people like Harvey Weinstein and Bill O'Reilly were ..."

Franklin Graham: New Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Policy ..."
"> When I tell people who start talking religion that I’m an atheist, I get ..."

Ask Richard: Atheist Abused as a ..."
"How do you know what anyone else feels like?"

Franklin Graham: New Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Policy ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Elizabeth

    some people do dress revealing to go to court. plus it doesn’t matter if she was in her bra and panties he has no right to humiliate her like this and use the name of God to back him up. He should be sued for ruining her day and be ordered by a court to re pay her all expenses.

  • Elizabeth

    like a whore???????? there is nothing that says whorish about this dress. I feel sorry for any woman that dates you

  • usclat

    Brilliant!

  • usclat

    “Slutty”? And if you want to spew slime from your QWERTY go to a xtian blog.

  • PlainCatholic

    Hey she was free to marry outside a church. You want to marry in a church you accept their rules

  • Defender of the Faith

    Please feel free not to use the educational system, healthcare facilities, science discovered etc by said Christians.

  • Defender of the Faith

    Agreed!

  • Defender of the Faith

    Have you ever considered that no one but your husband wants or needs to see you half naked?

  • CherylMIM

    In other words, she wanted to be married in a Christian Church by a minister of God, without respecting 1. the morals/values of the Church or faith 2. the dignity/faith of the minister performing the ceremony 3. the dignity of the Christian sacrament of marriage or 4. the dignity of herself or her future spouse by arriving in something worthy of a strip club. Your right, we all know about the Christian views of modesty… It wasn’t about ‘slut slamming’. She requested a Christian ceremony ~ if she had no intentions of respecting the Christian pastor or the Christian faith then she had no business asking to be married in a Christian Church.

  • Diane

    Courageous and appropriate … A+ to this Pastor!

  • Banyansmom

    You don’t wear a bikini in church. Or this trashy thing either. And the sad thing is that people have become so lost to decorum that we have to argue about that.

  • Banyansmom

    Well, the Bible and the church usually do go together.

  • Banyansmom

    Easy–the definition of the church the wedding was being held in. And you don’t pay the minister up front. And of COURSE slut-shaming is okay. If people behave like sluts, they should be called on it. I mean, you call people on other kinds of bad behavior–why not that one?

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    Oh no, a woman who acknowledges and enjoys her own sexuality!

    Slut shaming is bad because it is inherently anti-woman and reinforces patriarchal ideas about how women “should” dress and behave. It’s harmful.

  • Banyansmom

    Nonsense. Just nonsense. People who behave badly should expect to be called on it. And yes, promiscuity is just wrong. If people go alley-catting around mating with all and sundry, it’s unhealthy, it’s bad for society, and it’s bad for the people themselves. Your ideological clap-trap sounds like “the men said we shouldn’t do it, so we’re going to, na, na-na, na, na. SO THERE.” Sorry, do grow up.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty — Survivor

    Oh, go back to church you miserable old bag. I am NOT property, I am NOT a slave, and I refuse to have my sexuality policed by the likes of you!

  • Minnwise

    It is more likely that the pastor refused to marry the couple because a woman who is willing to show off her body to men who are not her spouse in this manner does not have the frame of mind consistent to marriage as held by the religion she chose to be married in. If she wishes a religious marriage, it is not unreasonable to expect religious values on marriage to be held. The couple will have no trouble finding a civil servant to marry them without any moral reservations, someone who is not ordained and vowed to lead a congregation in moral values that they do not agree with. She could be married naked if she wishes then.

  • Minnwise

    You think it unreasonable that an ordained minister would uphold the religious values he vowed to lead his flock with? That’s a “bigot” to you?
    I think the bigot is the person who judges another for keeping promises they have made in their life’s vocation.

  • Minnwise

    Unless in that particular congregation that is the values that are part of their religious beliefs and are common knowledge. This article does not state why the couple chose this church, this religious congregation, or this particular pastor. But it obviously was not a group the bride was familiar with. Whoever brought her to this church, be it her fiance, friend, or other person, is at fault. It is not the fault of the pastor. The pastor has every right to expect that who comes into his church to be married by him is in agreement with the values he is vowed to shepherd his flock in alignment with. It is unreasonable to expect the pastor to know the particulars of those who come to him. If someone approaches the services of a religious leader, they are agreeing to the values (s)he represents.

  • Minnwise

    Ours was paid after the fact.

  • Minnwise

    Just as a note in reply to your comment Christopher, it is most likely that the pastor was not a “Father” for both the Catholics and the Anglicans (the only religious groups with “Fathers” for pastors) require time spent well ahead of the wedding to meet with Fr in premarital consultations. In this time the type of woman who would have worn this sort of dress for her wedding would have likely been recognized to a degree, and though the exact topic of dress style may not have been discussed, the attitude that promotes such a purchase would have been addressed, for in both Catholicism and Anglicanism, reasonable chastity and fidelity in the marital relationship is part of the discussion. Fr or one of the many classes required for attendance would have made it clear that the frame of mind which is behind such an exhibition as this dress would not be appropriate to anyone entering into a marital relationship. If a woman, after such premarital meetings did not grasp this in the faith she was about to be married in (which have “Fathers”), then it would be evident to Father that she was not ready for a sacramental marriage, which is what both the Catholics and Anglicans perform. Therefore it was not only the right of the “Father”, if it was indeed a “Father”, to refuse, but his obligation to do so as required by his vows.

  • Tanja Cilia

    …all she needed was a surplus surplice…