Oooof. This is a tricky situation. The NYPost uses an unnamed representative while the NY Times uses the event coordinator himself. I'm inclined to believe the named source over the unnamed source, but I guess this is unfortunately where readers themselves need to decide which publication/article is more factual.
Oh, in the NYPost reporting it looks like the unnamed representative made the statement on Saturday but then updated and changed their statement on Monday. NYPost is focusing on the Saturday statement instead of the Monday statement.
Yeah, it's difficult to know which is more reliable. I'm inclined to discredit unnamed sources, but there have been times when they were reliable. It could be an instance of fake news trying to cast doubt on real reporting. This is why I'm not inclined to readdress the issue with my content, because I can't be sure the NY Post is accurate. I've tried to corroborate it, but can't seem to find reliable sources that do so. Given that virtually every news agency these days operates on a bias, I don't feel the need to put too much energy into it. My original post stands. Christians need to get off it and move on.