It is unfortunate that the record on appeal did not put the question squarely on the necessary facts so the Court would be compelled to take the case.
John / Billybob
No, sir, I do not miss that point at all. I am quite familiar with unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and I know that it would not control the present case. The doctrine is an inconsistent mess, (particularly after FAIR*) and it is extremely unlikely that the Court would even consider applying it to a freedom of association case like this.
As I said earlier: this isn't a surprise to anyone. The Boy Scouts had to decide if it was more important to retain their right to exclude homosexuals, or more important to retain their many government benefits. They chose the former. Now the government is treating them just as it would treat any other organization that does not abide by their nondiscrimination policies.
Tell me, why do you think the Boy Scouts deserve preferential treatment in these matters? You may feel they are an excellent organization, and you may be right, but that does not by itself elevate them above the state's nondiscrimination requirements.
*During which, as I recall, you took a very strict spending clause position, emphasizing the right of the government to spend its money according to its own preferences.