Philadelphia and the Boy Scouts

I have read with interest both Robert's post and the New York Times article about the Boy Scouts and the decision by Philadelphia not to continue allowing the Boy Scouts to rent city property.

The Boy Scouts clearly have a right to define their own membership and should not be coerced or pressured by the state "to abandon their beliefs and their liberties."  However, my understanding from the NYT piece is that Philadelphia has an ordinance prohibiting discrimination and requires that those leasing city property agree to nondiscriminatory language in their lease.  The question, it seems to me, is whether the city is required to exempt the Boy Scouts from the ordinance.  It may be that there are good policy reasons for them to do so (Boy Scouts serve many in the inner city, providing after-school activities and  mentoring, etc.) and there may be arguments that they ought to be grandfathered given the origins of their use of the property and the fact that they built on and improved it.  But that is different from saying that a failure to exempt them impinges on their consitutionally protected belief.

Having framed the question the way I think it ought to be addressed (or at least in a way that I think raises an interesting question), what is strange about the NYT article is that it reports that the city of Philadelphia is willing to allow the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.  If the ordinance in fact requires that tenants agree to a nondiscrimination clause, compliance with the ordinance would seem to oust the Boy Scouts regardless of the amount of rent they pay.