Although I'm usually very much a person who expects people to abide by established rules, contracts and laws in a given community, there are at least a couple of factors which make me want to at least consider the circumstances of the particular case mentioned in this article and question their appropriateness.
Our nation is at war with what is essentially an idea, and there's plenty of precedent for making changes to established rules and laws during extreme circumstances, such as wartime. The fact that this matter was afforded a vote by the Association leaders at least suggests to me that there may have been an option for an alternate decision, and if not, how about at least considering an amendment to the Association bylaws, considering that our nation is at war and the war effort deserves support from all communities? The fact that these points were apparently not even considered by the Association naturally begs the question of 'why not'? This question may have a simple answer right in the article:
"The concern that we have is what if the neighbor across the street does not support the troops or is against the administration and starts putting up those types of signs," Manning said. "So, here we have a war of the signs and we definitely do not want to get into that."
Simply put, they took the easy and gutless way out.