The article says that the paster says she is lying, so either he is or she is. Right?
Not necessarily either/or.
Note, first off, that this report is from a local opinion writer -- I suppose one would call him an "advocacy columnist." So we first have to account for Mr. Noreen's fingers in the story, and the fact that he has his own slant on it.
Beyond that, there's a big gap between the two stories, and here's what I think it probably is.
I think Assam is being truthful when she says she told the church leadership about being a lesbian. And I think they responded by telling her that, although she was welcome to continue worshiping with them, her sexual orientation disqualified her from being a security guard -- and Assam took that obvious demotion as a signal that she was no longer welcome. And I think she stretched the truth a bit, though I do think the situation made it impossible for her to stay there.
As for Boyd, I think he is likely telling the truth when he says she's welcome to "sit in the chairs," but I also think he left out a few of the other details.
There's more to the story, I think -- both sides are spinning it to some extent.