Without facts that are not in evidence, we can't conclude that it's "like removing inactive members from the congregation." It's quite possible that the congregations that have been given this choice ARE still active in their synods and the ELCA.
The comparison was not about one's activity per se, but that one's actions cause the so-called "booting out". In my example, it is the inactivity of members that cause them to be removed from membership by the council. In the case under discussion, it was the congregation's actions (joining another Lutheran body) that caused them to be faced with a choice of picking one or the other. Their choice resulted in removal from the ELCA's roster.
It's like the occasions when I have received a ticket for speeding. Should I put all the blame on the police officers who gave me the ticket; or should I accept responsibility for my own actions that resulted in the ticket? In rare cases, I might argue that I didn't know the speed limit. The rules weren't posted. (I think this is part of the argument under discussion.) In that case, police officers will state that the drivers' handbook we all had to study in order to get our license, lists the general speed limits on different type roads when they are not posted. (The congregation under discussion argues that the rule that they were punished under is not posted anywhere -- and they are right, in so far as I cannot find any rules that talk about dual rostered congregations.) However, if after a first offense, the police officer tells me what the rule is, and lets me go without a ticket, and I continue to drive too fast on that road, I should expect a ticket have to pay the consequences on subsequent infractions. I can no longer claim ignorance of the rule. (I may not agree with the rule, but I can't claim ignorance of it.)
When clergy and congregations have been informed that they cannot have dual membership in the ELCA and LCMC, and they persist in continuing their dual membership, they should expect to pay the consequences.
That is the usual case in regards to inactive members. When they fail to meet the expectations of membership (expectations that they may not be aware of,) they are to be informed of the rules, and that they have failed to meet them, and then be encouraged to follow the rules and become active members. If they persist in their inactivity, they are removed. After being removed, should they blame the council for "booting them out" or accept responsibility for failing to abide by the rules?