Boy Scouts vs. Philidelphia (Fixed)

[jackofallgeeks]

So, the Boy Scouts' stand on homosexuality is in
the news again today, with the City of Philidelphia saying they can
change their policy of excluding gays (and atheists, apparently), or they
can remove their organization from publicly-owned land (technically, they
could also pay $200k/year rent). Now, I don't really care to get into the
details of whether a private organization can set discriminatory standards
for membership, or whether the fact that the scouts built the building at
their own cost has any bearing on the fact that they don't own the plot of
land, or any of the other bits in this bin. But one thing that struck me is
that this conflict is being framed as a "free speach" issue, and I don't
think that's appropriate. This isn't about what the scouts are saying, it's
about who they let into their club, and those aren't the same thing. I
think more to the point is the question of whether this is a case of the
government coersing a private institution through financial pressure, and
think that's more problematic, too. The city does have rights to operate
it's property as it sees fit, but it's still troublesome to me when the
government swings it's influence around to force people to do things like
this.

Comments

[elizardaa.livejournal.com]

So while I totally agree that government using it's financial weight in this way worries me, I must admit that as regards this issue I'm quite happy. I personally think it's utter crap that such a large, well-known, and secular (my impression until a few years ago) organization would disallow homosexuals and atheists. The homosexual bit especially, since my understanding was that the argument was that gay troop leaders may increase child molestation, which doesn't hold water since child molestation does not generally follow sexual orientation.

So...
YAY! Phillidelphia!
BOO! Phillidelphia?

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

So... I'm a little confused by the principle involved here. Let's say that I bought the land (though not the building - those things can be owned separately).

Assuming that none of this violates a contract in place...

1. Would it be OK for me to start charging rent on it because I don't like the Scouts' policy?

2. What if I started charging just because, while the previous owner was a strong Scouts booster and gave them free occupancy, I don't care about the Scouts and really want the money?

If the answer to either of these is, "yes, it'd be OK," then why is it any different for the government? It's not like they're using eminent domain or anything as a pressure tactic - just the government's own position as a corporate actor in the market. If it wouldn't even be OK for me to do it (even though it might be mean), why not? What are my obligations to folks who I could charge for something but don't?