[Non-Sequitur]

It's pretty obvious that most people have not read the article.

"Unlike the scouts, public officials are also bound by a line of Supreme Court opinions barring taxpayer support of any group that discriminates.

In Philadelphia, officials wrestled for months for a way to let the scouts remain at their longtime headquarters.

At one point in 2005, the city and scouts seemed poised to agree on a policy statement adopted by New York scouts. That statement, while not renouncing the bars against atheist or gay members, affirmed that "prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable."

But last year, Diaz wrote Cradle of Liberty Council officials to say the suggested policy statement could not be reconciled with the city's own anti-discriminatory fair-practices ordinance.

Again, both sides began trading proposals. That ended May 31, when City Council voted 16-1 to authorize ending the lease with Cradle of Liberty Council."

The city has to abide by the anti-discrimination laws in place. San Francisco would have cut the Scouts loose - I believe Berkley did - but at least Philly tried to find a compromise. In the end their hands were tied.

[longtermmemmory]

Does everyone realize that they have a counter argument that the city is violating the 1st amendment by seeking to establish a association requirment?

The issue is what has the city done with like situations?

Are other organizations given similar token rents for use of public lands? Then they have a claim.

IF ALL organizations get the same market value rents then ouch. IF only some get the market rent because the don’t meet the government religion requirement then it is an issue.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The city has to abide by the anti-discrimination laws in place."

To me, these anti-discrimination laws always founder on a massive self-contradiction. To revoke the scouts lease because of their policy on gays is itself a form of discrimination.

People say, "No, we're just discriminating against discriminators," but that's a false argument. The scouts discriminate against gay scoutmasters because they think homosexuality is wrong and that it threatens the well-being of scouts. (By the way, it didn't get much publicity, but the scouts recently released national statistics that showed that dozens of gay scoutmasters have indeed violated hundreds of scouts, and - even with their safeguards - it is a huge problem, legally and financially.)

The city discriminates against the scouts because they think discrimination is a sin. So the city is really saying, "Discrimination is justified only to counter certain sins, and we will decide what those sins are."