Church cancels gay man's funeral

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Horrible, of course, but expected from a church.   

[tik 🪀✨]

The total ignorance on the Atlas as to how Southern churches, including blacks ones, as in this case, treat outsiders is hilarious.

You didn't elaborate on how we should expect them to treat outsiders as you do with your insider black southern religious knowledge. But if you mean that expecting them to think of gay people as more than their sexualities is ignorance on our part then.. laugh away. Silly us!

Perhaps this glimpse of my hometown might offer you some insight.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/13418
FWIW, this building used to house a white megachurch, with private day school, of course, before those people moved to the neighborhood by the thousands. It goes without saying, that church then decamped out to the distant suburb of Collierville. A great many churches around here are still named The [now ghetto neighborhood] Baptist/Christian/Etc (but usually one of the first two) Church, decades after they moved to greener whiter pastures. Anyhow, that neighborhood changed/went downhill around the late 1990s. The current congregation moved in and erected the statue (with much fanfare; dedicated on July 4th, bien sur) and here we are. Southern churchy people of both races are still working on seeing people of the other racial group (Asians, Hispanics, and "others" aren't even thought of at all for the most part) as more than just their race. Although it would be wonderful if they did, expecting them to extend that courtesy to gays is incredibly naive, so much so (and you might just be Australian and not know this, though American posters do it all the time too) that one can only conclude that Religious Privilege doesn't permit you too see what is blindingly obvious. Not only does de facto religion (I have no interest in getting into a theological or theoretical debate) not help solve these divisions in life, it strongly contributes to the common sentiment of not quite actual hatred but instead a routine disregard for mutual humanity nestled inside a smug sense of superiority.

Thanks for your insight (genuinely). I'd like to remind you (not for the first time) that I am an American and spent the first 22 years of my life in Ohio, and most of that time I was an evangelical Christian in an extremely white environment with very conservative people surrounding me. I don't know the racial mindset of Southerners terribly well though so your post was nice, although not particularly surprising either.

I don't doubt many posters here are aware of those dynamics on some level.  I don't understand why that would make anyone feel less disapproving. It's not any more excusable. Or is your point that we simply shouldn't be shocked or surprised? That's fair, I guess.

[Cory]

Nothing more annoying than a homophobic racial minority. Urgh.

I know right? Black people in the Southeast are the worst about it. They're the first to complain about "discrimination" but God forbid (perhaps literally) they get over their hatred of gays and to a lesser extent Hispanics. Meanwhile their mac daddy "preachers" utterly fleece their congregants and buy expensive luxury cars, expensive watches and jewelry and justify it all with their ridiculous "prosperity gospel". Never mind the fact that said preachers are typically the most smug, entitled pricks you will ever meet. Terrible.

Obviously there are really decent and good black churches that help with community building and fellowship but this trend is real and it persists. A lot of white churches are the same way but they typically aren't as blatant.

[MaxQue]

I'm not sure how we can ban that practice, but, at least, the church should be forced to pay for all costs ther breach of contract caused.

Hell, yeah!  And while we're at it, let's make sure that people who don't belong to the right church are concentrated into re-education camps.  After all, any religion that doesn't agree with what we think is moral and upright isn't really a church at all.  In fact, let's just burn their church down to the ground.  Better yet, why not outlaw all religion and churches altogether?  All they ever do is get in the way of progress.

MaxQue's post started with "I'm not sure how we can ban that practice...." which sounds like he thinks we should force churches to perform religious ceremonies. I'm not sure he actually thinks that, but that's how I (and presumably Angus) read it.

The issue is "cancelling". If you agreed to hold it, you must hold it or else pay compensation for the trouble caused.

[memphis]

Nothing more annoying than a homophobic racial minority. Urgh.

I know right? Black people in the Southeast are the worst about it. They're the first to complain about "discrimination" but God forbid (perhaps literally) they get over their hatred of gays and to a lesser extent Hispanics. Meanwhile their mac daddy "preachers" utterly fleece their congregants and buy expensive luxury cars, expensive watches and jewelry and justify it all with their ridiculous "prosperity gospel". Never mind the fact that said preachers are typically the most smug, entitled pricks you will ever meet. Terrible.

Obviously there are really decent and good black churches that help with community building and fellowship but this trend is real and it persists. A lot of white churches are the same way but they typically aren't as blatant.

White churches usually have a better grasp an optics. But you still end up with the Jimmy Swaggarts and Ted Haggards far more often than most people want to believe.

[CountryClassSF]

Shameful and heartless -- Apparently they felt the other funeral services they held were for non-existent unsinners?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm not sure how we can ban that practice, but, at least, the church should be forced to pay for all costs ther breach of contract caused.

Agreed.  The government shouldn't force religious institutions to hold any ceremony they disagree with, but if the funeral was agreed to by the church, they should be held responsible for breach of contract (if anything was paid) as well as any potential tort that may arise due to lost costs.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At the very least, that church should have followed the example of Joshua's dealings with the Gibeonites and let the funeral proceed as it had agreed to.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

There's no such thing as 'a gay funeral' or 'a straight funeral'. What a ridiculous concept.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I wonder how Jesus would feel about this.

Probably something along the lines of:

Matt 8:22 "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

But consider the following points...

1) From a legal standpoint, to avoid being sued for not conducting gay weddings, the church (probably) didn't want to set the precedent of conducting a gay funeral.  Just goes to show the blowback when the pro-homosexuality forces abuse the judicial system.

2) Of course, finding out after agreeing to do the funeral created a tacky situation for the church, but since it was a Southern Baptist Church, the people requesting the funeral should have been able to predict the reaction if the church found out. 

3) Come to think of it, why wasn't a homosexuality-approving denomination chosen by the friends/family of the dead gay?  Sounds like a set-up to me. 

Ban, please.

[afleitch]

Hi jmfcst...or is GaussLaw jmfcst? It's hard to tell these days.

[memphis]

It was not an SBC church. It was an MB church. There is a world of difference.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Hi jmfcst...or is GaussLaw jmfcst? It's hard to tell these days.

I'm pretty sure GaussLaw's not jmfcst. I think this guy might be (I wouldn't say announcing himself with a weirdly concrete and literalist interpretation of Matthew 8.22 is a dead giveaway but it's certainly suspicious), which is sad because treating 'a gay funeral' as a sensical concept is obtuse even for him.

[GaussLaw]

Hi jmfcst...or is GaussLaw jmfcst? It's hard to tell these days.

Why would you think I'm jmfcst?  I've seen some of his old posts and they're pure fundamentalist......

I am open-minded on things like hell/salvation and creationism........jmfsct was not.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hi jmfcst...or is GaussLaw jmfcst? It's hard to tell these days.

Why would you think I'm jmfcst?  I've seen some of his old posts and they're pure fundamentalist......

I am open-minded on things like hell/salvation and creationism........jmfsct was not.

I don't think the jmf can go 650 posts without being banned, so absent some ip epiphany here I'm not buying it.

[Simfan34]

Disgusting, but there isn't anything to be done about it beyond perhaps prohibiting such extraordinarily last-minute cancellations.

[traininthedistance]

Yeah there's a world of difference between Gauss and the jmf, afleitch.

Of course there is absolutely no difference between the jmf and Mr. Hoople.  Guess we were due for a new sock, it's been awhile.

[DC Al Fine]

Yeah there's a world of difference between Gauss and the jmf, afleitch.

Yeah if anything I'd say he's a Scott sock

[Badger]

I wonder how Jesus would feel about this.

Probably something along the lines of:

Matt 8:22 "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

But consider the following points...

1) From a legal standpoint, to avoid being sued for not conducting gay weddings, the church (probably) didn't want to set the precedent of conducting a gay funeral.  Just goes to show the blowback when the pro-homosexuality forces abuse the judicial system.

2) Of course, finding out after agreeing to do the funeral created a tacky situation for the church, but since it was a Southern Baptist Church, the people requesting the funeral should have been able to predict the reaction if the church found out. 

3) Come to think of it, why wasn't a homosexuality-approving denomination chosen by the friends/family of the dead gay?  Sounds like a set-up to me. 

Ban, please.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What did the family want the pastor to say, "I typically comfort surviving family members by referring to eternity when conducting a funeral, but since I believe homosexuality is sinful, can we just skip over eternity?"

As opposed to in all those other funerals he's conducted for notorious non-sinners, I'm sure.

[angus]

I'm not sure how we can ban that practice, but, at least, the church should be forced to pay for all costs ther breach of contract caused.

Hell, yeah!  And while we're at it, let's make sure that people who don't belong to the right church are concentrated into re-education camps.  After all, any religion that doesn't agree with what we think is moral and upright isn't really a church at all.  In fact, let's just burn their church down to the ground.  Better yet, why not outlaw all religion and churches altogether?  All they ever do is get in the way of progress.

MaxQue's post started with "I'm not sure how we can ban that practice...." which sounds like he thinks we should force churches to perform religious ceremonies. I'm not sure he actually thinks that, but that's how I (and presumably Angus) read it.

The issue is "cancelling". If you agreed to hold it, you must hold it or else pay compensation for the trouble caused.

I agree that it stinks, but even more striking is this thread.  It reminds me of some of the Hollywood movies from the 1930s which were set in Germany.  Invariably some heavy-handed recruiters show up at the university spewing whatever hateful speech they consider fashionable and the students are all like, "hell, yeah.  I'm with that."  The professor tries to speak out but generally ends up losing his job, and sometimes a few teeth when he gets roughed up by the young thugs who only yesterday were giving him some award for his years of service to the university.  Groupthink is far more creepy to me than a few stubborn old church busybodies.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But at least he didn't force them to bake a cake.

This is the same thing

This man wasn't demanding baked goods from some stranger.  He was a member of the church community. He died.  They promised him and his family this one simple decent thing, and they rescinded.  This isn't just bigotry, it is betrayal.

Thankfully we can at least expect that another church that won't either consign him to Hell or be too cowardly to stand up for the most rudimentary tenets of the Gospel will step in here.

There are LGBT Christians who are betrayed on a daily basis, in life. There are people who do wonderful things for their church community; for fundraising, for kids, for music and education and they are betrayed when they enter into something joyful with another person. This is nothing new. Nor is the smugness in which people do this on the basis of 2014's big buzzword 'my sincerely held religious beliefs.' It gives you the right to be an asshole, with legal protection.

I still don't get the equivalence you are making here.  It is possible for someone to support inclusiveness, but also be willing to accept that there is a price to freedom of religion, association, and expression, and believe that it is worth it. 

[angus]

I don't normally ask about such things, but I'm too curious.  What does your signature represent?  It looks like a bit of marginalia from a medieval manuscript.  Those were some pretty detailed and whimsical images.  A rabbit riding a dog with a snail of prey on his arm fits the bill.  Intriguing image, but what statement are you making with it?  Was it penned by the Church's first openly gay archbishop and we're all meant to recognize it?  Is it a metaphor for some political statement?  Or is it one of those, "well, if you have to ask, then you probably wouldn't understand it anyway" sort of devices?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I understand Christianity at least adequately, thank you. I've heard this all before and am perfectly clear on the distinction between repentance and non-repentance. I simply don't believe that the pastor is the one with the ability to reliably identify that distinction and believe that one should err on the side of hope.

Framed this way I'll concede that this is perhaps for the best if the pastor felt that he really couldn't have brought himself to conducting a mutually acceptable eulogy, sure, but I'd still say that's his problem, not that of the bereaved.

[memphis]

A Nathan vs Jmfsct religion flamewar? This looks promising!