It's as if they think that since the BSA doesn't allow "avowed" gays or atheists as members, nothing about the BSA is good, and it deserves to have everything it has earned or paid for taken from it, and to be cut off from the public. It is, in fact, not at all far fetched to think that there are deliberate attempts to bleed it dry; the death of a thousand cuts.
Which is what Chad and I were trying to tell you on Salon "TableTalk", Ron: These are not nice people, under the rubric that "People who are nice to you but rude to the waiter, are not nice people."
Nice to see you again, and I think you got it right both times. No obligation on the part of Berkeley to treat the Scouts differently than other eleemosynary groups (taking a pass on the marina-fill issue), and no obligation on the Scouts to do what Berkeley's political leadership manifestly wants them to do.
On the whole, maybe the divorcement is a good thing. Maybe at the most basic level it's simply true, that Berkeley doesn't deserve the benefits of scouting, which ought to be redirected to other, nearby communities that appreciate Scouts and scouting instead.
If the Berkeley City Marina uses any Federal subsidies in their capital or operational budgets, I wonder if the Equal Access Act could be applied in such a way as to negate the local anti-discrimination policy?
Of course, using a Federal law to override a local one is not exactly conservative, is it?