no because the city is saying the $1 a year deal would be allow IF the scouts complied with the city’s view of recreational sex.
It is NOT equal treatment because another pro-homosexual group would get the enhanced benefit.
It is UNequal treatment based on the scout’s conscience.
If the city wanted to go with clean hands they would have to charge EVERYONE exactly the same. They are not. You can get preferential treatment if you agree that one man playing with another man’s genitals is somehow “normal”.
That torpedoes the argument the city is putting forth.
That's one way of putting it I suppose. But the Scouts are free to say 'No' to the city and there is nothing the city can do to force the Scouts to admit homosexuals. At the same time there is nothing the Scouts can do to force the city to subsidize their headquarters, either.
It is NOT equal treatment because another pro-homosexual group would get the enhanced benefit.
And what group would that be?
It is UNequal treatment based on the scout’s conscience.
If the Scouts can show that other organizations with similar exclusive membership policies have been allowed to use city property then they would probably win their case.
If the city wanted to go with clean hands they would have to charge EVERYONE exactly the same. They are not. You can get preferential treatment if you agree that one man playing with another man’s genitals is somehow “normal”.
So you say.
That torpedoes the argument the city is putting forth.
Somehow I don't think so.