The bottom line is : What does the modern Olympic movement stand for? Differences between countries will always happen, that's a given. However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Would it be acceptable to give the Olympics to a country where women showing their legs in public is condemned and/or forbidden? Should we respect that as well? Would that be consistent with the Olympic charter?
This is the exact point I was trying to make. If the Olympic Movement wishes to present itself using specific narratives, then they should not be surprised that narratives regarding boycotts arise if they select a host that do not even reflect their own narratives, let alone international standards of citizenship rights that are reflected in every major international governmental organization.
And to respond to someone amount the potential to cause feelings of alientation: Yes, it would be alienating some states but history has shown through South Africa that the prevention of a state from the Olympic Games can have serious political repercussions and be one component of political change for the better.