Balance indeed -- we're in complete agreement there. If anyone tells me there's one "right way", I'm inclined to run away. There are lots of right ways, and if ten people discuss them, the result is fifteen opinions.I have no quarrel with the "business" model. I certainly have no quarrel with compensation for one's time, skills, talents and passion; I've been happily "professional" for decades. I agree that there's a lot of infrastructure required that costs money.
Also, the discussion of credit cards requiring an organization to be a formal "business" was never meant to be another dreary "Fantasy Makers vs. the Gates" issue. Sage's enterprise has won as many friends and supporters as we have, and she deserves respect; so do many others in the area. Nor did I intend to imply that one couldn't have business and passion in the same organization -- that's silly.
As long as money remains secondary to the quality of the product or service provided, the business model is perfectly legitimate. Some people make it work very well for them. Others, like me, prefer a different way.
My own objection to the business model starts with not wanting to be a "boss". I'm willing to hold responsibility, but without putting myself "above" others. It may easier to invoke authority than to seek consensus, but I learn a lot from seeking that consensus, even if ultimately I must make a decision, and even if everyone doesn't agree. I also don't like the idea of having to "monitor" and report every penny people make. And I prefer associations of responsible adults to hierarchies.
I like the challenge of fostering mutuality and cooperation in a family context. I've worked in adult businesses since 1965; I'm glad some of them showed me how good it can be when everyone helps everybody else, where people were encouraged to think, to care, to be responsible, to value one another and their clients.
I'm also glad, in a grim sort of way, for the places that showed me how much I hate backstabbing competition and "staff-versus-client" nastiness. I've worked for bosses who hired you for your age, your face, your race, your boobs, your weight, anything they thought would "make them money", while dismissing your imagination, attitude, passion for the activities offered, and even ethics as irrelevant. By swearing I'd never be like them, I've attracted some very interesting, exciting people. I'm sure Sage has considered similar issues, come to similar conclusions, reaped similar rewards.
But the bottom line in this discussion is still, as you say, balance. Sage has done things her way, the Fantasy Makers, working with the model we inherited from BackDrop, have created our own. BackDrop continues with their version of that model. Others (Sirens and the English Mistress' group, the many independent Mistresses in the area, some of the ladies who integrate fantasy play into other adult services) all have their own ideas. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them; each works well for the clients who prefer them, and together we've given the Bay Area a wealth of options for fantasy play. That, imho, is the the objective; we're all "right".
Be well.
'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.