I agree that BDSM should never involve unknowing, or unwilling participants in our scenes. But I 100% disagree that it "involved the parishioners" since none of them were actually there or involved. It was only after the fact, when they found out that their physical building was used as a movie set, that they were involved in any way and that involvement was just being offended by it.

If someone taking offense at BDSM activities after the fact is within your definition of being involved then you should never participate in any BDSM activity, even in your own home with a consenting partner. We may live in an echo chamber here and our own BDSM communities, but make no mistake that we are a group whose specific sexual interests are considered offensive to the vanilla world as a whole and the "religious" most of all.

It would surprise me that any church has never been used as a place for private sexual encounters. I'm not talking about priests raping young boys, I mean heterosexual encounters between consenting adults (and in many cases consenting teenagers) that is considered to be "normal". That type of encounter is taboo and disrespectful so therefore it is exciting to people. But I've never heard of parishioners destroying portions of their own church the day after finding out that parishioners "did it" in the sanctuary. So, the difference here isn't really about that, it is about their being offended by us as people with our sexual proclivities and that isn't smoke and mirrors.

Disrespectful of the parishioners beliefs? Absolutely... and I will even give you that because of the symbolism to be portrayed in the clips (which, btw, is protected speech under the 1st amendment) it was more disrespectful than people just doing it (but, I would still put it as way less disrespectful than rape, but you may disagree).

A federal hate crime? Hell no... especially since the only actual physical damage was done by the Church itself. There was no specific intent to cause harm to, physically intimidate parishioners or vandalize the physical building. The fact is that if the priest hadn't answered the door (after shooting was completed but before everything was cleaned up), there would have been zero damage to the Church or any knowledge of the goings on from that night to offend the parishioners.

In fact, I would (and have) argued that there wasn't a "crime" at all since being offensive isn't yet a crime in this country (although the police and prosecutors have always tried to use the law as a cudgel, like in this case, when something offends them). There was no trespass because the priest had the legal authority to use the Church and invited Ming & Vi to be there. No nudity or sexual acts were visible within public view at any point. No vandalism because there was no physical damage to any part of the building as part of the activities.



To explain your confusion... That isn't a legal fine for damages as mandated by the law, it is an agreement for restitution between the women and the Church that the court brokered (which is not unusual in vandalism cases). There was also an NDA, which my guess means that the footage can never be shown or used, since Vi announced the settlement publicly. All of this was accepted by the court as part of the plea deal for the dropping down to a single misdemeanor. My guess is the actual legal penalty for them pleading guilty was time served and the fulfillment of the private agreement.

But, yes, you attacking a Domme and accusing her of lying about things that are within the public record (and therefore could be checked) with zero evidence to back it up other than your own general offense and outrage absolutely tracks as true.