The opening night at Divine Playhouse included a performance by Etcetera Etcetera. Photograph: Anna Hay<\/p>\n
Heaps Gay had until 5pm on Friday to vacate, which gave them three days to clear a space that had been months in the making. Their lawyers, meanwhile, are exploring whether they can sue for damages and make a sex discrimination claim.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not just about Divine any more, it\u2019s about censorship,\u201d the promoter and founder of Heaps Gay, Kat Dopper, told Guardian Australia.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we were to walk away, these groups will just get stronger and more powerful and louder.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can\u2019t allow that to happen.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018Offensive trade\u2019: legal questions raised over eviction<\/p>\n
Located in the heart of Sydney\u2019s central business district, the former church has housed a children\u2019s school and a theatre since being deconsecrated nearly 100 years ago. As Divine Playhouse, it was intended to be a safe and inclusive queer-friendly arts space, organisers said.<\/p>\n
At its opening night party, titled the First Rite, hundreds gathered for performances from drag artist Etcetera Etcetera, a DJ set by Stereogamous, performances from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and a speech from the city\u2019s deputy lord mayor, Jess Miller, who spoke of the \u201cintergenerational magic\u201d of spaces like this.<\/p>\n
The crowd at Divine Playhouse\u2019s opening night. Photograph: Anna Hay<\/p>\n
From the stage, Dopper announced the venue had changed its name from Unholy Playhouse at the last minute, answering concerns raised by people from the Christian community.<\/p>\n
But Christian groups, including Fit for the Kingdom and the Prodigal Sons, still gathered to protest, taking issue with what a spokesperson from Fit for the Kingdom described as \u201chateful blasphemy that mocks what we hold most sacred\u201d.<\/p>\n
Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email<\/a><\/p>\n They pointed to social media images from the First Rite, featuring drag queens dressed as nuns, an attender wearing a corpus from a crucifix on a leather choker, and a performer in a pig costume offering french fries as holy communion.<\/p>\n A day after that party, lawyers acting for the landlord sent a notice of breach to Divine Playhouse, claiming its \u201coffensive trade has caused \u2026 grievance and disturbance\u201d; \u201coffensive trade\u201d was later cited as grounds for the eviction under section 129 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).<\/p>\n The building is owned by developer Redevelop, founded by billionaires Anthony El-Hazouri and Charbel Hazzouri.<\/p>\n The landlords and their lawyers did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but told the Sydney Morning Herald they were not aware of how the space would be used and said it was \u201cequivalent to hate speech\u201d because it targeted people\u2019s religious views.<\/p>\n \u201cThe events \u2026 they were targeting Christian beliefs \u2026 and, for us, it\u2019s the height of offence to say it\u2019s about arts and culture when you\u2019re derogating an entire group\u2019s belief,\u201d El-Hazouri told the Sydney Morning Herald.<\/p>\n The heritage-listed former church on Kent Street, Sydney, which housed Divine Playhouse. Photograph: Jessica Hromas\/The Guardian<\/p>\n But the law firm representing Heaps Gay, Marque Lawyers, argues they did not have a proper basis for termination.<\/p>\n The notion of \u201coffensive trade\u201d finds its roots in 1840s English law and was historically used to regulate things like noxious smells, the managing partner of Marque Lawyers, Michael Bradley, said.<\/p>\n Its definition in the Conveyancing Act says lessees must not use, exercise, or permit \u201cany noxious, noisome, or offensive art, trade, business occupation, or calling\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s never been applied to moral offensiveness in the way the landlord is seeking to do,\u201d Bradley said. \u201cWe don\u2019t doubt that the landlord is offended by what Heaps Gay was doing, but that\u2019s a subjective personal question.\u201d<\/p>\n Cathy Sherry, a Macquarie University professor and land law expert, said there was a \u201cvery strong possibility\u201d that the definition referred to things that were physically offensive, as \u201cnoisome\u201d and \u201cnoxious\u201d were physical descriptors.<\/p>\n Allowing a landlord to define \u201coffensive\u201d to include what they found \u201cmorally offensive\u201d could also pave the way for Australian property law to become more like the US, where restrictive covenants were used by developers to facilitate racial segregation and discrimination<\/a>, she said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf one landlord can evict a tenant because they claim what they\u2019re doing on the premises is offensive, then every landlord can.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/2998.jpg\")
<\/p>\n