I’ve not read the linked articles, curious was there physical damage to the church or was it that they “desecrated” the church and the parishioners felt they needed to replace the altar?

To use your analogy, did the desk need replacing because the CEO and the dominatrix used it, or because they physically broke it while using it?

I’m certainly no lawyer either, but it seems different if it was actually physically harmed versus some perceived defilement.

This was the core of my earlier hypothetical question. Would the same rules apply if a catholic priest “purified” a satanic altar? Would the satanists be entitled to a new one if there was no visible damage?