[Girlene]

Get your story straight, Bubba Ho-Tep. I think SENTINEL is on to something here. From this link, Philadelphia Threatens Boy Scouts For Following Policy Upheld By Supreme Court

"While the offer may seem fair, Robert Knight of the Media Research Center wrote in a column posted on TownHall.com Tuesday that the Post report left out many key facts to the dispute.

The Beaux-Arts building was in fact built by the Scouts and later given to the city in 1928, noted Knight.

He added that the Scouts had a lease “in perpetuity” with the city, an agreement that was not upheld by the City Council."

[Altura Ct.]

Thanks for that link and info.

The city leaders behind this should be tared & feathered.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Here's what I can find:

"They voted 16 to 1 to break a 79-year-old agreement allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts to occupy a building in a city park. The Scouts built the building in 1928, and turned it over to the city in exchange for a rent-free lease “in perpetuity.”source

Here's the resolution from Philadelphia's City Council which says,

WHEREAS, In 1928 the City of Philadelphia gave the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts (now known as the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, and referred to here as “the Boy Scouts”) permission to build, at its own expense, a building located on City land located at 22nd and Spring Streets; and

WHEREAS, As reflected in the grant of permission, set forth in an ordinance of Council approved December 14, 1928, the building was to become “at once the property of the City”; and

WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts, pursuant to that grant of permission, built a building at that location,

So it looks like it was city land to start with.

He added that the Scouts had a lease “in perpetuity” with the city, an agreement that was not upheld by the City Council.

From another source

"The city's agreement with the Cradle of Liberty requires it to give the group one year's notice to vacate the building."

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Again, the crux of the matter isn't whether or not the Scouts can ban homosexuals, it's whether the city has to keep letting them stay in the building under the present arrangement.

And the Supreme Court's refusal to take the Berkeley Sea Scouts case, letting the lower court decision stand, would seem to say that they don't.