Christian-Owned Bridal Shop Under Fire for Declining to Schedule Lesbian Gown Fitting


Bridal Shop pdBLOOMSBURG, Pa. – A Christian-owned bridal shop in Pennsylvania is under fire for declining to schedule a gown fitting for two lesbian women.

According to reports, an unidentified woman called W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg recently to schedule a gown fitting for herself and her lesbian partner. When the owner, Victoria Miller, declined by stating that the business could not accommodate the request, the woman took to Facebook to post about the matter.

“Unfortunately, she would not be able to schedule an appointment for us because they currently do not service same-sex couples — it’s just not something they do,” the unidentified woman said.

“We feel we have to answer to God for what we do,” Miller told reporters this week. “And providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God’s law.”

As previously reported, Christians live by the mandate in 1 Timothy 5:22, which tells followers of Christ to “neither be partaker of other men’s sins; keep thyself pure.” Businesses such as Miller’s believe that to assist in a same-sex “wedding” would violate Scripture’s command not to partake in another’s sins as it would be a form of participation.

But after the matter was posted online, homosexual advocates took to Yelp, Google, Facebook and other outlets to flood the boutique’s pages with negative reviews.

“This company is formed by religious extremists who practice hate filled-customer service,” one wrote.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Victoria Miller is a whack job that seethes hate,” another posted. “She will burn in hell for her statements about God hating gay people. I hope you go out of business.”

But a others decided to show support for Miller and W.W. Bridal Shop, stating that she has the right to follow the Creator’s commands despite attacks from same-sex advocates.

“In case anyone was wondering, the negative reviews are not real reviews. They are simply from people who don’t believe someone has the right to run their own business according to their own religious beliefs,” one wrote.

“Standing for God is never wrong, no matter what society says,” another stated.

“God commands us to love the sinner but hate the sin,” a third remarked. “That means you don’t do things to promote the sinful acts.”

According to BloomUToday, the Bloomsburg town council may now be seeking to pass a regulation barring businesses like W.W. Bridal Shop from declining requests from homosexuals and others despite their religious beliefs.

As previously reported, a number of businesses have been under fire in recent years for declining to participate in same-sex ceremonies. In December, an administrative law judge in Colorado ruled under the threat of fines that baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood must not refuse orders to make cakes for homosexual celebrations. He was later ordered by the Colorado Human Rights Commission to train his staff to accommodate homosexual events and to submit quarterly reports to prove that he has not refused the requests. Phillips is currently fighting the matter in court.

In Portland, Oregon, investigators concluded earlier this year that Christians Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against a lesbian when they declined to make a cake for her same-sex ceremony. The case is now in a conciliation phase to work toward a settlement, but if an agreement cannot be reached, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries has warned that “the bureau may bring formal charges and move the issue to BOLI’s Administrative Prosecution Unit.”

The Klein’s closed their bakery last year and moved all operations to their home, as they state that homosexuals used “mafia tactics” to force them out of business, sending threatening emails , harassing their vendors and ransacking their bakery truck as they packed to leave. But the couple vowed to continue to stand, giving glory to God in a note that they affixed to the bakery as they closed down in September.

“This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong,” it read. “The Lord is good and we will continue to serve HIM with all our heart.”

Print Friendly

  • C,P Steinmetz

    These people’s reasoning fails in so several ways:

    1. Do they drink water? 1 Timothy 5:23 (the next verse) says: “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” How can they follow one verse and not the next?

    2. When did Jesus say these things? These are the words of Saul/Paul, who never met Jesus, and, in fact, was a man that Jesus didn’t see fit to make a Disciple. So, his claim that he speaks for God are just self-serving – without foundation. In fact, on occasion, he even contradicted Jesus.

    • William

      So, have you ever read the bible (and I mean in context)? Saul was converted _BY_ Jesus on the road to Damascus, and the office of apostle, when literally translated means sent by Christ, which is why there is no such thing as a “modern day apostle”.

      And the line about drinking water with wine is a purification method of the day, likely required by him having ulcers (stomach infirmities). Is this, like your best shot at listing contradictions in the Bible?

      Please give me one place, from a normal translation, with commentary by any reasonable biblical scholar where Paul contradicted Christ’s teachings?

    • Bryton

      Not to incite a flamewar, but for the sake of those reading the above comment by CP Steinmetz:

      1. 1 Timothy 5:23 is a separate point. Also, this advice is addressed to Timothy (the recipient of the letter) precisely because he was sick so often. Does everyone have “frequent infirmities?” Of course not. This is a silly non sequitur error.

      2. Jesus affirmed the Old Testament canon on many occasions, which strongly condemns all forms of immorality, including sodomy. Also, Paul did meet Jesus (Acts 9:4-5). No, Paul was not a disciple, but an Apostle (which hardly reduces his credentials). As for the “on occasion, he even contradicted Jesus” comment, that is just elephant hurling.

      In conclusion, Jude 1:7.

      • C.P. Steinmetz

        Let me reply to both of your comments at once. I did not intend to start any wars – I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of the clothing store owners.

        As I don’t share your faith, my interpretations must be basd upon logic and what the scriptures say. You can tell me where my interpretations are incorrect.

        Saul/Paul claims he met Jesus. In fact, his ‘conversion’ seems a clasic ‘Hysterical Conversion Reaction.’ Also, if I recall correctly, his companions storys differed. More generally, do you believe everyone who claims to have met Jesus, an angel or God in a vision? Joseph Smith, Mohemmad, etc. If fact, there is even video of Adolf Hitler claiming ‘God sent him to save Germany.’ I believe none of them. If you only believe Saul/Paul, what reasons can you give for only believing him?

        I could believe your interpretation of my “silly non sequitur error” if the verses stated that he was giving advice on health to Timothy. However, two verses before it states:”21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” [Emphasis mine] As I read it, verse 23 tells Timothy not to drink water (which will kill him in two weeks), but he can drink a little wine if he has stomach problems.

        About contradictions: Hurrying to respond – two examples. Saul/Paul says he judges others, and I believe tells others to judge – Jesus say not to. Jesus says to pray alone in you closet – not what Saul/Paul says. “Elephant hurling?” Never heard of that – will have to investigate, because it is a catchy remark.

        Again, my point is about hypocrisy: Do the store owners refuse to serve all who violate Biblical sanctions? Did Jesus affirm these Old Testament canon:
        Women who wear pants? 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
        11 People who wear mixed fabric clothes. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
        Child abuse. Pr 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
        Genocide? 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
        Limited punishment for abortion? 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

        My conclusion is that they are hypocrits, in that they selectively decide who to serve, and should not try to justify their behavior based upon Christianity.

        • Scott

          Steinmetz you said Paul’s conversion seems like “Hysterical Conversion Reaction” and that you actually believe no conversion stories. I appreciate you being consistent with your material chance worldview. In such a worldview, there is absolutely so such thing as supernatural conversion, so there are certainly none that take place….at least from your starting point.

          On a different note, in a material chance worldview, exactly what’s wrong with hypocrisy? It can be beneficial to survival. It can be helpful in acquiring a job or advancing my position within a company. It can help me acquire a good mate to pass on my genetic material. It can advance my status within my circle of friends.

          Thanks, and have a great rest of the week!

          • C.P. Steinmetz

            You misunderstand. You state: “In such a worldview, there is absolutely so such thing as supernatural conversion, so there are certainly none that take place….at least from your starting point.”

            In my worldview, I do not rule out a supernateral explanation; rather, I don’t rule it in as the first explanation. In this case, you have a classic social-psychological concept that seems to explain in detail every aspect of Saul/Pauls ‘conversion’. So, before I would consider a supernatural explanation, you would have to show why the natural explanation doesn’t work or isn’t sufficient.

            Your different note about “in a material chance worldview, exactly what’s wrong with hypocrisy” is a potentially interesting side issue. However, in this case, I was speaking to the hypocrisy of people who claim to be Christian – where such hypocrisy would not be true to their professed beliefs.

  • Chuck

    Perhaps there is a nice Muslim owned bridal shop the happy couple could try? I’d bet good money that the gay mafia are specifically targeting Christian owned businesses just so they can file their grievances and advance the immoral, leftist, agenda.

  • Webb

    Intolerant sodomite haters and bigots who intentionally target Christian businesses need to be stopped legally. They are trampling on the religious rights of others. As Tom said, why don’t they go to Akbar’s Sharia Gown Shoppe and see what happens.

  • Cindy Ray

    Nowhere have these Christian business people shown animosity or hatred toward the homosexual community. Based upon Biblical conviction, they feel they cannot service them. It is the militant homosexual who seem to want to throw down the gauntlet, and make this a hate issue. That is indeed unfortunate.

    • C.P. Steinmetz

      You state: “Nowhere have these Christian business people shown animosity or hatred toward the homosexual community.”

      I don’t know about ‘community’, but telling the two women that ‘We don’t serve your kind here,” seems greatly off-putting.

  • Mary Hutchinson

    This has been going on for years. First it was removing God out of our schools, then out of our government and now out of our way that we conduct our business. The atheists and the LGBT are nothing more than a domestic terrorist group who use their opinion (or belief) to terrorize those who do not agree with them. Not with guns or bombs but with a twisted use of our constitution. We as Christians need to continue to stand on the Word of God and not compromise. For there will come a time when the Bible will be illegal to own. So write the words upon your heart. Jesus said that we were going to suffer and be hated among men. So consider it a blessing if you are, for it is not you that they hate but the Truth, who is JESUS.

  • TBPlayer

    So if my religious beliefs meant I refused to sell a wedding dress to a divorced woman getting remarried, or to an interfaith couple, would you be OK with that?

    How about if I refused to serve Christians altogether? Does that fall under the heading of “religious freedom?”

    Can I have potential customers fill out a little religious questionnaire to make sure I’m not violating my religious beliefs before I deign to sell them whatever goods or services I’m in business to provide?

    Or how about this for a business principle, a secular, for profit business, which claims to be open to the general public, should actually be, you know, open to the general public?

    If businesses like this are being “targeted,” it is for exactly the same reason that segregated businesses were targeted by blacks in the 50s and 60s: to call attention to immoral discrimination and work to get it changed.

    And Mary, there is absolutely no chance of it being illegal to own a Bible in the US anytime in the foreseeable future, and the dress shop owners aren’t “suffering.” They’re being criticized for being bigots.

    But if feeling persecuted makes you feel superior, go for it.

    • kali down

      How about not going after religious beliefs and asking from a a moral standppint. People understand marriage to be as one man and one woman, most definitely Christians. People like Christians accept our gay brothers and sisters as they accept anyone else, however they also have the choice to not have to agree with their lifestyles. If one is confused at this point then take this as example. Parents can love their children whilst still disagreeing with their children’s actions they believe wrong. Not through a spirit of hate but of love

      Now apply this principle to the question about the lesbian couple. The Christian bridal shop owner just happens to be Christian right? So if the actions of the lesbian couple violates her conscious, should she have a right to refuse service from a moralistic standpoint?

      Let’s apply this question to a not necessarily equal analogy, but one that is extreme enough to drive the point home. Imagine that you are a hardware store owner. Imagine that someone came into your shop explaining he needed a hammer and other tools to murder and slaughter 5 year children. From a moral standpoint, would you feel comfortable selling these to them, or would you just let it be? Afterall, someone like you might later condemn you and say you were discriminating….

      Now the question we all forget to ask, is why are LGBT seemingly targeting businesses that are Christian owned. We see it alot. Coincidence right? I don’t believe in coincidences…..