Why did they agree to the funeral in the first place? Nobody hid the man's sexual orientation so why all of a sudden the cold feet?
Would you force a Church to hold a service for an acknowledged and proud drunkard? Would the Church have no recourse but to hold the service when it was revealed that a video showing his prodigious drinking skills would be shown at the funeral?
Would the church have banned the funeral if there was a picture of him drinking a beer? The Bible teaches that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Had Mr. Sinclair been a divorced man would this church censor out pictures of his second wife on the grounds that he and she were living an adulterous lifestyle? I think not. Mr. Sinclair was who he was. His family and his partner were a part of his life and accepted him for who he was, better or worse. If the church could not do the same then they had no business whatsoever of extending the invitation in the first place. But having done so then they should have allowed the family to remember Mr. Sinclair as they wanted to.
Why can't it make a stand and say, "No, not in our sanctuary. We won't allow a celebration of sin to take place where we meet to go into the presence of God in our time of communal worship."
Because if they ban the sinners then the church would be empty?
Once again I find proof that those who scream "Tolerance!" the loudest are those who will not tolerate those who disagree with them.
And that those who scream 'Sinner' generally are very selective in the sin that they protest against.
The Church knew that he was a homosexual when they agreed to have the service.
It was later discovered that as part of the service, there would be photos that “celebrated” his lifestyle. It was then that the Church decided that they could not help someone “celebrate” homosexuality in their sanctuary.
If he were a divorced and remarried individual, I don't think they would have a problem with photos of his second wife, but that is a ridiculous statement since they didn't have a problem with photos of his "partner" either.
They extended the invitation out of love, they offered to rent another place for the family out of love, they donated all the food and the video out of love.
But because of their conviction not to compromise their principle, you lamblast them.