Despite the facts that the Boy Scouts are anti-gay and self-identifies as secular but in fact has Christian practices, these are not factors to be considered over doing "good works" with youth. Perhaps if more recent public discoveries about institutional cover-ups about pedophilia practices by some scout leaders had also been on the table the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals might have ruled differently in determining that the "City of San Diego's leases with the San Diego Scouts did not confer an unconstitutional benefit on a religious organization simply because the Boy Scouts disapprove of homosexuality and require Scout members to profess a belief in God."
But like-it-or not, the Court ruling makes-sense to me. And maybe litigation was not the best approach to challenge an institution's questionable (to me) values when in fact that same institution may do some good as well, at least sometimes. Perhaps instead approaches to achieve change might include: trying to get board seats and making change from the inside but at the "top"; reach donors and call for change at the "top"; and maybe akin to litigation -- strong messaging to the public that an institution that there just isn't a place in society for a nonprofit that does harm as well as good.