The BSA has struggled for decades with its sense of responsibility (as have public education and religious organizations) for protecting its immature and/or impressionable members from possible exposure or exploitation by practicing pedophiles (or atheists, militarists, religious zealots, murderers, etc.). Excesses have attended policy definition, interpretation, and exercise with most changes in administration of the BSA ... and where have they NOT occurred?! Few have demanded that the Boy Scout and Girl Scout programs be merged to prevent the sexual discrimination implied by preventing combined participation by both sexes in the scouting program.

Political(ly correct) pressure to redefine the organization's policies through economic coercion may be cathartic to some, but offers little to address the positive individual and leadership skills training (without extant bias propaganda - positive or negative) which BSA provides.

It seems to me that if the politicians of Philadelphia should make a more inclusive statement regarding their support for a policy of nondiscrimination in sexual orientation as it regards access to the city's young people ... through its real estate agreements.

Also, I suspect that the building in question is administrative offices rather than part of the boys' activities. The focus on a building suggest principal ($$$) rather than principle is a guiding factor. Perhaps the Philadelphia fathers should rescind their acceptance of the gift of the building and reimburse the BSA for the building at its current replacement value - to commute all prior agreements and benefits (to either the city or the scouts) of their sense of guilt by association.

Macbeth had it right, eh?

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."