If this man had been a church member, then they should have held his memorial but talked to his family about the care that needed to be taken about talking about his life. The article says that they knew he was gay. If that’s true, then they should not have agreed to hold the memorial. If they knew and then they offered his family that service, they should have carried through with it. His homosexual partner should never have been acknowledged in the service, though. It’s a difficult issue. If he was a member of their congregation and was known to be living in sin, then he should have been ex-communicated if he was not working with them to get out of his sinful lifestyle. A sad issue for the church to deal with. Even sadder that people are consciously choosing to live in sin.
This is incorrect.
The funeral was going to go welstone with homosexual agenda type praise.
The churche was willing to buryy without the sexual politics. It is the family that insisted to go public with the dead mans recreation of playing with the genitals of other men.
Some church have policies to not do funerals for suicides in much the same way regardless of membership.
You analysis is incomplete.