Totalitarianism in Philadelphia

I appreciate Fr. Araujo's concern that Philadelphia's decision to end its below-market lease arrangement with the Boy Scouts is another "step toward totalitarianism."  It prompts a question, though: What if Philadelphia was charging $1 per year rent to the White Scouts of America, an organization that did not allow non-white youth to participate?  Would the revocation of that lease amount to totalitarianism, or simply represent the city acting to facilitate the common good by sending a powerful message on behalf of the citizenry that discrimination will not enjoy government subsidies?  If our reaction to the revocation of the White Scouts' lease is different than our reaction to the revocation of the Boy Scouts' lease, I don't think our objection is rooted in fear of totalitarianism.  As I've argued elsewhere, I strongly believe that the government should not exclude certain groups from access to public fora based on the substance of the moral claims they are making, but the flip side is that the government must be free to express the citizenry's views about those moral claims.

If we want to debate about whether discrimination against gays should be used to justify the same sort of government action as discrimination against racial minorities, that's a worthwhile debate to have.  But it appears that the elected officials of Philadelphia have resolved that debate.  We can disagree with that resolution, but that doesn't make it totalitarian.