And actually it COULD be at least asked of the person what he had in mind. If the answer has any kind of “inclusion of LGBT in church affairs” then we know it is no. But if it does not, then the onus is on that person if he has not been honest, not on the church for taking it as honest.
Some people ass-u-me without even thinking of the possibility to ask questions!
As it is, he did sing separately, so he accommodated the church and the church accommodated him by keeping respectful distances.
“And actually it COULD be at least asked of the person what he had in mind.”
When I first heard this story I did make an assumption—I assumed the priest was acting in good faith, which means that he discussed this at least with family members if not directly with the sodomite in question.
If never occurred to me to think that the priest made his decision hastily, without due investigation of the matter.
“But if it does not, then the onus is on that person...”
You’re forgetting the scandalizing of the faithful.
“Some people ass-u-me without even thinking of the possibility to ask questions!”
And some people assume that others are doing that, without, apparently, even considering that what they’re seeing is a carefully considered judgment based on years of effort.
“and the church accommodated him by keeping respectful distances.”
A sodomite, in the absence of other crimes, retains his right not to be killed. One can respect that he is also a child of God, but must be mindful of the fact that he is a wayward and extremely dangerous child. He may deserve pity, but he doesn’t deserve respect.