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."

"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"

How about having the boy scouts pay for the property taxes on the building for all those years they used it?

Perhaps it bears mentioning the likelihood that the decision has little to do with Philadelphias professed desire for 'tolerance and inclusion', but instead the cold and pragmatic assessment of the value of the structure to the city's financial bottom line.

Please do not try to tell me that anyone is naive enough to believe that politicians in Philiadelphia are solely concerned with anything other than the money.

Why should they when the state broke the agreement? It was the city's rules that put BSA into this problem. BSA did nothing wrong by having their rules regarding homosexual scoutmasters, even the Supreme Court sided with the BSA about this. The city changed the rules, and they want the BSA to bend to them.

Besides it doesn't make sense to penalize someone when you have commited the wrong. The building was 'owned' by the city, the BSA were just using part of the building rent free. They never said, TAX free. And istn't he BSA a not for profit organization? Could've sworn those groups were exempt from alot of taxes.

Unless I've misunderstood something here, the city exchanged permanent, rent-free use of the facility when the Boy Scouts paid to produce it and made it the property of the city (a legal mechanism created to avoid the existence of property taxes since it is a publicly owned building). If the city wants to reneg on its agreement for political(ly correct) reasons, then why should it not pay the costs of bailing out of its agreement by purchasing the facility rather than accepting it as a gift?

Um, because the city has always owned the land? Because by any sane business accounting system (which is how law works), the building's value has deprecated into almost nothing?

You know what? I agree that it would be reasonable for the city to have a fair assessment of the building ALONE, which results in them cutting a check to the BSA for the building ALONE, or applying that dollar amount to however many years worth of rent in the future.

But the BSA has demanded, all the way to the Supreme Court, that they be treated as a private organization. They decided to explicitly exclude from gays, even after decades of evidence that homosexuality isn't a disease or disorder. They therefore no longer espouse the same high levels of equality that truly public institutions must follow, and therefore cannot be included on the government's dole as a public institution. In short, the BSA is getting exactly what it ASKED FOR.

I contend that the "positive individual and leadership skills training" which the BSA provides is compromised by its exclusion of gays and atheists. A Scout is trustworthy (if he is straight and Christian?); loyal (to his own kind?); helpful (within the bounds of theistic decency?); courteous (we'll exclude you politely?)... so it goes.