Okay, how and on what basis other than the religion of the builders did we decide this was "wrong and inappropriate"? Because here you are saying that the Government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs. So what about the "GZM" makes it "wrong and inappropriate", if not the religion involved?
It has nothing to do with the Islamic faith, and everything to do with the association with the tragedy that took place there.
Let's say that instead of murdering 3,000 people in the name of Islam, fanatics had instead murdered 3,000 people in the name of Ronald McDonald. It would be inappropriate to put up a ginormous McDonalds restaurant right there. Again, it wouldn't be their religion (Ronald has no religion, afaik), it would be the association with the great tragedy.
Landlords do retain rights over property, but in any case, your argument can't possibly have to do with lease terms - if it did, the Government could simply lease on conditions that businesses follow anti-discrimination laws and not do anything Government is prohibited from doing. But you specifically identified such demands as illegitimate when made by Government.
First off, the question isn't whether landlords in general
can put such a requirement in the lease, the question is whether the specific landlord in this case
did put that requirement in. If the Just Cookies lease specifically says Just Cookies must give up certain aspects of its day-to-day operations, such as their ability to choose what products to make, as a condition of leasing the space, then I'd be more ok with it.
Some folks in this thread have asserted that the city did put such a restriction in. I don't believe it. I worked in commercial real estate for about a decade, and I've seen plenty of leases. I can't remember ever seeing anything like that. If anyone thinks think that these terms are in their lease, and that the city/ICM is acting within its bounds of its contract in trying to control what kinds of cookies the Stocktons sell, then prove it and I'll drop the matter.
You're right, though. If
the government is the entity doing the leasing, then the entire community should have equal access to the project. The gov should not specifically require that members of any faith act against their religious convictions as a condition of receiving the same city services, advantages, and access as everyone else.
This whole mess is the result of government exceeding its authority by trying to legislate against religious convictions, and trying to legislate its own moral dictates in their place. Any law of this sort is bound to cause problems.