March 30, 2006
First of all, I have a problem with the headline:
When you read the story, you find out that the Dominatrix rented the property from the church and she claims she held a long-term lease with an option to buy. Once the church found out what her business was, then they wanted to evict her.
She decided not to fight the church in court. They didn't "oust" her, because I suspect that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on.
A couple of questions come to mind. First, is being a Dominatrix illegal in South Africa? It doesn't appear to be, judging from the story. She had even given a tour of her "torture chamber" to reporters. Notice also that she didn't have sex with her clients and it wasn't a brothel. You were paying to be dominated by a woman, you weren't paying for sex.
Was there a "morals" clause in her lease? You know what I mean, something that states that the tenant will only behave in ways acceptable to the church. I don't know if that's enforcable, especially if said actions aren't illegal.
Finally, are any of the church congregation clients? Just curious. It would be professional suicide for her to mention names, because confidentiality would be crucial in her line of work. I wonder if any of the church members are heaving huge sighs of relief that this is all going away (semi) quietly.
Whip me, beat me, make me evict you. *snicker*
68 queries taking 0.1649 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.