Texas church cancels funeral for gay man

mesquite wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
your fact source seems to have missed a few facts, CR

Quote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5054460.html

And a few more facts from the above source.

Quote:
High Point's reaction to news that Sinclair was gay ranged from bumbling to insulting. First, church leaders claimed that the funeral was canceled because Cecil's family had prepared a slide show with "very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging." Sinclair's family said this is untrue.

Later, Simons told the Dallas Morning News that the situation was comparable to a congregation member losing a son who was a thief or murderer. High Point might offer a service, Simons said. "But I don't think the mother would submit photos of her son murdering someone."

CoastalRat wrote:
What a difference a few facts make, huh? Of course, most here on A2K still won't see it that way, but at least everyone will have the facts.

Quite right about the importance of facts CR. Just imagine the horror if a church member had been exposed to one of those inappropriate for Christian eyes photos. Keep your head up and don't let us unwashed A2K heathens spoil your view.

It is not about exposing church members to inappropriate behaviour, rather it is all about what the church believes is right and wrong based on their interpretation of scripture. I don't expect you to agree or to understand that some people do indeed think there is a very defined line between right and wrong. I don't much like the comparison that was made. But I would equate it a different way. Morally, I believe it is wrong for two people who are not married to engage is sexual activity. My sister was for a time living with her boyfriend and was coming into town and wanted to know if she could stay with us. I said sure as long as her and her boyfriend slept in seperate rooms. My home, my rules. I think it is the same type of situation. The church has every right to say what is or is not appropriate for a memorial service in their building. They had every right to not be seen as supporting homosexuality, which is exactly what some may have thought had they allowed things as the family wanted it. If the family did not wish to abide by the church's guidelines, then the church had every right to cancel.

Last year I attended the funeral for a relative who was gay. There was no problem with the church service. My relative's partner was recognized as being his long-time partner, but there was no in your face celebration of my relative's lifestyle. It is all a matter of being reasonable. I think in this case the church was trying to accomodate, but would not cross a line the family seems to have wanted to cross.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

The church may have the right to host service for whomeever they wish but the word "tacky" comes to mind here. Canx'd the day before the scheduled services??? Nice....

Yeah, on the face of it I can see why you would think it tacky to cancel the day before the services. But then I get to thinking how much notice would have been reasonable to you? I mean, it's not like there was a month from the time he died until the scheduled service. There was what, 2 days maybe? (I really don't know, just guessing based on funerals I've been to) So the day before the service may have been just one or maybe two days after he died. If you stated that they cancelled out two days after the guy died it doesn't sound so bad, does it? It's all relative.

0 Replies

ehbeth wrote:

Quote:

Bad timing.

Good lawsuit.

did the church draw up and sign a contract for the funeral? if they didn't sign a contract, can they be sued, especially if their bi-laws give them full autonomy? and is it fair to sue, if the majority of the members( who's tithes create the church) don't want this funeral on their premises? i agree with coastal, it seems as if the church went above and beyond to help this family and only stopped the funeral when it went against their beliefs(which are scriptural).

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

It is not about exposing church members to inappropriate behaviour, rather it is all about what the church believes is right and wrong based on their interpretation of scripture. I don't expect you to agree or to understand that some people do indeed think there is a very defined line between right and wrong. I don't much like the comparison that was made. But I would equate it a different way. Morally, I believe it is wrong for two people who are not married to engage is sexual activity. My sister was for a time living with her boyfriend and was coming into town and wanted to know if she could stay with us. I said sure as long as her and her boyfriend slept in seperate rooms. My home, my rules. I think it is the same type of situation.

I don't think there in any comparison with that analogy. I saw no mention of a sexual orgy being a part of the planned funeral. There was mention of photos of what the pastor called homosexual kissing and hugging and an openly homosexual choir was to sing.

CoastalRat wrote:

The church has every right to say what is or is not appropriate for a memorial service in their building. They had every right to not be seen as supporting homosexuality, which is exactly what some may have thought had they allowed things as the family wanted it. If the family did not wish to abide by the church's guidelines, then the church had every right to cancel.

Agreed. They have every right to keep their noses aimed high and set the standards for any services in their church, but to me it was morally repugnant to take such action the day before services were to be held. It displayed a total lack of compassion for a grieving family. christians with a small c, a low point for High Point Church.

CoastalRat wrote:

Last year I attended the funeral for a relative who was gay. There was no problem with the church service. My relative's partner was recognized as being his long-time partner, but there was no in your face celebration of my relative's lifestyle. It is all a matter of being reasonable. I think in this case the church was trying to accomodate, but would not cross a line the family seems to have wanted to cross.

What is considered reasonable and what is in your face most assuredly depends upon which side of the fence you are on. Generally funerals are to celebrate the life of the deceased. To deny the homosexuality of this poor fellow would be to deny his life. It beats me as to why a family would even consider having services in a known hostile environment, so I suspect that the hostility came as a shock to the family.

0 Replies

Since they believe in the cosmic jewish zombie then they're all delusional lunatics anyway.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

ehbeth wrote:

Quote:
Bad timing.

Good lawsuit.

did the church draw up and sign a contract for the funeral?

Whether they did or not doesn't really matter. The spokesperson for the Church has publicly admitted that there was at least a verbal agreement.

Quote:

if they didn't sign a contract, can they be sued, especially if their bi-laws give them full autonomy?

Sure they can be sued. Bylaws are strictly internal and have nothing to do with it. I can create bylaws for the operation of my own houshold but that doesn't mean that my neighbor can't sue me for something I do to them. They aren't bound by my bylaws. When a Church deals with the public it is bound by the contract laws of the State just as any other entity is. A Church can't create bylaws that exempt themselves from the law of the land.

Quote:

and is it fair to sue, if the majority of the members( who's tithes create the church) don't want this funeral on their premises?

Is it fair for someone appointed as a spokesperson/representative of the Church to agree to something and then back out of it later?

If someone is appointed as a spokesperson/representative of a group and they have the authority to make decisions for the group then any decisions they make within that authority are binding on the group. If they enter an agreement that exceeds their authority then they are personally responsible for it.

Quote:

i agree with coastal, it seems as if the church went above and beyond to help this family and only stopped the funeral when it went against their beliefs(which are scriptural).

Perhaps. But it is their responsibilty to know all of the facts before entering an agreement. If they wish to exclude gays then it is up to them to make that exclusion known beforehand. If they had asked, been lied to, and found out afterwards they'd have a leg to stand on but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I can see both Jes' and CR's points. On the one hand it WAS a breach of contract. On the other there may have been a question that the church had okayed the service without knowing the details.

Jes- As an attorney, I think that this is something that is in your bailiwick. Let's take another example. A man agrees to paint a house eggshell, sight unseen, for a certain amount of money. When he comes to the house, he finds that the walls are badly cracked, and the house had been formerly painted a very dark shade. In other words, in order to have the house painted satisfactorily, he would have to do an unusual amount of preparation, and would have to put numerous coats of paint on the walls.

Does the painter have the right to renege on this deal, or is it his tough luck that he did not make more detailed inquiries before he agreed to do the job for a certain amount of money?

The painter can reopen negotiations and see if he can get additional consideration for the deal. If not, the painter's best options are to either renege and hope a judge sees things his way (which may or may not happen) or suck it up, do the job and then never work for that person again. And chalk it up to the school of hard knocks and never, ever offer to buy a pig in a poke again.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Quote:

Sure they can be sued. Bylaws are strictly internal and have nothing to do with it. I can create bylaws for the operation of my own houshold but that doesn't mean that my neighbor can't sue me for something I do to them. They aren't bound by my bylaws. When a Church deals with the public it is bound by the contract laws of the State just as any other entity is. A Church can't create bylaws that exempt themselves from the law of the land.

in most church bi-laws there are regulations set for funerals and weddings, usually based on the churches beliefs pertaining to scripture. THis gives a church freedom to reject or accept a person or persons for these services. if such bi-laws were a part of this church, can the family of this man sue and win?

Quote:

Is it fair for someone appointed as a spokesperson/representative of the Church to agree to something and then back out of it later?

is it fair for the family of this man to abuse the graciousness of the church by imposing things that are contrary to beliefs of the church?

Quote:

But it is their responsibilty to know all of the facts before entering an agreement. If they wish to exclude gays then it is up to them to make that exclusion known beforehand. If they had asked, been lied to, and found out afterwards they'd have a leg to stand on but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

for all we know, the family hid their intent to have a homosexual singer and pics that would be deemed inappropriate, or decided at the last minute to do these two things.
the only fault that lies with the church is not stating upfront (if they didnt) that they would do the funeral but with certain exceptions in concordance with scripture. personally i think it is rude that the family has the audacity to complain to the media and others when the funeral was cancelled. its not a secret that the majority of christians believe homosexuality is a sin and its wrong to expect the church to go against their beliefs to accomodate others. especially after all that the church had done for the family.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

fishin wrote:

Quote:
Sure they can be sued. Bylaws are strictly internal and have nothing to do with it. I can create bylaws for the operation of my own houshold but that doesn't mean that my neighbor can't sue me for something I do to them. They aren't bound by my bylaws. When a Church deals with the public it is bound by the contract laws of the State just as any other entity is. A Church can't create bylaws that exempt themselves from the law of the land.

in most church bi-laws there are regulations set for funerals and weddings, usually based on the churches beliefs pertaining to scripture. THis gives a church freedom to reject or accept a person or persons for these services. if such bi-laws were a part of this church, can the family of this man sue and win?

Sure they could win. It is up to the Church to review their bylaws BEFORE agreeing to do something. They don't get to enter contracts and later decide if they want to uphold them or not. If the Church's spokesperson who agreed to host the service did so in violation of the bylaws that is between the Church and their spokesperson. They are still on the hook for being responsible for their actions with the family. If the spokesperson erred then the family sues the Church and the Church can decide if they want to sue their own spokesperson or not.

Quote:

Is it fair for someone appointed as a spokesperson/representative of the Church to agree to something and then back out of it later?

is it fair for the family of this man to abuse the graciousness of the church by imposing things that are contrary to beliefs of the church?[/quote]

On what planet does asking an organization to host a memorial service constitute "abuse"??? You are stretching beyond credibility.

Quote:

But it is their responsibilty to know all of the facts before entering an agreement. If they wish to exclude gays then it is up to them to make that exclusion known beforehand. If they had asked, been lied to, and found out afterwards they'd have a leg to stand on but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

for all we know, the family hid their intent to have a homosexual singer and pics that would be deemed inappropriate, or decided at the last minute to do these two things.[/quote]

Perhaps that is all you know but that would indicate that you haven't read the previous newspaper coverage that has been posted in the thread.

"While Sinclair was in the hospital, High Point's audio-visual minister met Sinclair's life partner. When Sinclair died, church officials knew the Turtle Creek Chorale, a gay men's chorus, had been asked to sing at the funeral."

Quote:

the only fault that lies with the church is not stating upfront (if they didnt) that they would do the funeral but with certain exceptions in concordance with scripture. personally i think it is rude that the family has the audacity to complain to the media and others when the funeral was cancelled. its not a secret that the majority of christians believe homosexuality is a sin and its wrong to expect the church to go against their beliefs to accomodate others. especially after all that the church had done for the family.

Is it any less audacious to make a commitment to a family at a time of grief and then break it? Should the family not have also expected that the Church wouldn't go against their beliefs about lying?

0 Replies

Quote:

On what planet does asking an organization to host a memorial service constitute "abuse"??? You are stretching beyond credibility.

i said "abuse the graciousness of the church..." i think it is rude to ask christians to go against their beliefs to facilitate a funeral. as i stated earlier, the church should have known everything bf oking the funeral, but i don't think they should be attacked as they are. they went above and beyond to help this man and his family and only stopped when it went against their beliefs.

Quote:

Is it any less audacious to make a commitment to a family at a time of grief and then break it? Should the family not have also expected that the Church wouldn't go against their beliefs about lying?

i don't see where the church lied. i see that they oked a funeral without knowing everything (which they shouldn't have done) and only backing out of facilitating the funeral when they found out what it would entail.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

its not a secret that the majority of christians believe homosexuality is a sin and its wrong to expect the church to go against their beliefs to accomodate others.

Yet they can happily ignore child abuse and paedophiles in their own ranks so easily. How many funerals have been cancelled for child abusing priests? What a bunch of two faced hypocrites.

0 Replies

Quote:

kate4christ03 wrote:
its not a secret that the majority of christians believe homosexuality is a sin and its wrong to expect the church to go against their beliefs to accomodate others.

Wilso wrote:

Quote:

Yet they can happily ignore child abuse and paedophiles in their own ranks so easily. How many funerals have been cancelled for child abusing priests? What a bunch of two faced hypocrites.

ah so this church has housed pedophiles??

first off, the majority of christians didn't support or hide child predators. that was the leaders of the cath church and they aren't the majority of christians nor do they represent us protestants. and please give some info on this particular church "happily ignoring child abuse in their own ranks".....

0 Replies

This is ridiculous. Regaurdless of any person's lifestyle, their family should not have to suffer such indecency. How indignant. Stories like piss me off.

I can care less that Christians think homosexuality is a sin, they think many things are sins, for that matter they think everyone of us from the infant to the preacher are sinners. They still get to be put to rest.

Such bullshit.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Christ - A cosmic jewish zombie who will make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, and telepathically tell him he's your master, so he can remove from your soul an evil force that's present in humanity because a rib woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating the fruit from a magical tree.

0 Replies

Wilso, you are an apostasy before god, behind his back and your signature is sophisticated.

0 Replies

epenthesis wrote:

Wilso, you are an apostasy before god

An apostate is someone who has left their religion. You can't be an apostate if you weren't a member of a religion to begin with!

0 Replies

He must have been famous or something if the Backstreet Boys were gonna sing at his funeral....or was it NSYNC.

0 Replies

Another athiest has eradicated God from his own mind. That is Good. Makes it easier for God to know whose side your on. (Romans 1:18-20)

0 Replies

hankarin wrote:

Another athiest has eradicated God from his own mind. That is Good. Makes it easier for God to know whose side your on. (Romans 1:18-20)

Another pathetic loser joins the ranks.

0 Replies

hankarin wrote:

Another athiest has eradicated God from his own mind. That is Good. Makes it easier for God to know whose side your on. (Romans 1:18-20)

Atheists wouldn't need to eradicate gods from their mind if child abusing parents and preachers didn't brainwash that garbage in there to begin with.

0 Replies

Texas church cancels funeral for gay man

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know