Apple apologists or not, attitudes by OS X users really doesn't matter to the legality.
The problem is interpretation of the EULA.
From your statement above it's clear you feel that the EULA is stating that you can not change, can not install, can not wherever any of the GPL parts of OS X.
Its not interpretation at all the EULA clearly states you can only use the software included on the install disk on Apple labeled hardware this places a restriction on your use of all the software that is included, installed and intended to be used with OS X on said disk.
My guess would be in a legal challenge to this Apple would state that they are referring to "their" parts. They do provide the source to GPL parts as required by its license also.
Which they cannot place further restrictions on its use and by telling you it can only be used on Apple hardware this is one.
So although GPL parts are included in the OS X, they are essentially protecting their proprietary parts as you can download code and source for Darwin which is essentially OS X without Aqua.
Still can't protect their own by violating another copyright.
Maybe Apple loses but I can see them making "corrections" in either licensing, hardware or both that could render the verdict pointless anyways.
Only include OS X with computers and as updates and the supply chain for 3rd party builders in gone.
They would need to strip out all GPL code then anyone wanting say a bash shell would need to download/compile/install from its site if Apple distributes they have to give you the same rights they had when they got the software and there certainly is nothing in the GPL that locks software to specific hardware.
Edit: In case you still have not got the point I am making.
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
This part of the GPL FAQ clearly states Apple has to have accepted the terms of the GPL by distributing its software. This below shows in the case of bash and other GPL software included shows they have distributed a binary intended to run on the OS X system.
macuser2525s-p35-ds3r:~ MacUser2525$ file /bin/bash/bin/bash: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures/bin/bash (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/bin/bash (for architecture ppc7400): Mach-O executable ppc
macuser2525s-p35-ds3r:~ MacUser2525$ bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0)
Copyright © 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
See the copyright notice there so anyone wishing to use this binary they have distributed needs to be running OS X to do so while exercising my rights under the GPL Apple cannot place any further restrictions on my use other than is in the GPL for me using it this means I can run it on any damn hardware I choose to do so regardless of what Apple's EULA states.
Edit2: Just in case you don't know who the Free Software Foundation is and the license used for Bash here is the first page I found stating it.http://www.absolutea...com/topics/Bash