Homosexuality is an entirely different topic now than it was in the 1920s. In addition to thinking homosexuals were mentally deranged, the people of the 1920s generally agreed that black people should use separate facilities in public, should NEVER marry a white person, etc. In the 1920s, ideas that would eventually form Hitler's eugenics program were considered refreshing and new.

Homosexuality was an entirely different issue in the 1920s, and NEITHER the BSA NOR the city would ever have been able to anticipate the situation today. I'm sure the BSA wouldn't let gays serve back in the 1920s, if only because being gay was illegal.

It's disingenuous, therefore, to act as though the city has broken a "gentleman's contract" when NEITHER side addressed the issue when the "contract" was first formed. In the ensuing 80 years, the psychological profession learned that homosexuality is natural variation in a small fraction of the heterosexual population, and the BSA has been taken over by religious extremists.

No one here would dare demand that the city enforce or honor contracts formed in the 1920s that would offend our racial sensibilities: if the BSA didn't allow black scoutmasters, would you people even be complaining? Or do you just hate gay people, and enjoy it when a public institution supports discrimination agains them?

Bad news for you but I would demand that a city enforce and honor contracr formed in the 1920s that would offence the racial sensibilties of the modern era. Before you get the torches and pitchforks just hear me out.

The BSA had the Supreme Court rule in their favor over a homosexual scoutmaster. Now if the BSA had recieved a ruling in the modern day from the Supreme Court that they could be bias according to race then they have the right to discriminate as they please.

And here's an idea as to why neither side delt with the "what if we disallow a gay scoutmaster and you come up with a law saying we can't discriminate" event. Perhaps in the 1920s they didn't really see that happening? You can NOT possibly deal with every single event that may arise 50,60, or in this case 87 years in the future. The 'gentleman's contract' is a simple understanding that is carried between two or more parties. You understand that if you do A, I'll do B.

For the record before I get called a gay basher.... I don't hate gay people, I hate people who demand private institutions (companies not included) change their acceptance or rejection of values just because their not in sync with what the hot button issue of political correctness at the time. Don't give me that KKK stuff either. Because private institutions also includes the Knights of Columbus, the Son's of Italy, Fraternaties, Sororities, the Elk Club, and many more that descriminate on dozens of different thing, like race, sex, religion, education, hair color, body type.

The BSA should keep their policy in effect, and the city should just give them their building back and apologise to every current and former BSA.

They should apologize for enforcing an anti-discrimination measure?

Also, you would support the BSA if they didn't allow black scout masters?

You seem to hold a deep misunderstanding about the Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court ruled that the BSA is a private organization, and therefore questions about bigotry are beside the point. The BSA could setup a Jew-hating country club in every American city if it wanted to.

Becoming a Supreme Court-recognized private organization meant that all the grey-area, blurry lines coziness with various municipalities had to end, as the line between the BSA and the general public had been clearly drawn.

So you're saying that gay taxpayers in the city should be FORCED to donate the LAND which the city has always owned? Or we should rip up the building and transport it to BSA-owned land? Or tear down the building and have the city planners hang their heads in shame?

The BSA cannot keep the land; it would be unjust and illegal; contrary to your limited comprehension skills, the Supreme Court decision EXACTLY demands that the BSA be separated from the city's subsidizations. So, even applying your linear "logic" to the situation, the BSA has no right to the land. What, exactly, would you propose the city do? Pay the BSA for a building which likely depreciated into nothing 30 years ago?