Chadds Ford Township officials were chagrined to learn a business operating in the township was actually a front for prostitution. The Lucky Spa was raided following a state police undercover investigation and it was ultimately shut down. That was seven years ago.

Set aside the debate over whether prostitution–or any other vice–should be illegal. That’s a difficult concept for many to swallow. The fact is that prostitution is illegal in Pennsylvania and those responsible for enforcing the law will investigate, charge and prosecute those found in violation. But that’s after the fact, not before.

In its concern to prevent another brothel from opening up in the township, supervisors at the time enacted an ordinance that set stricter standards for people wanting to open any type of massage business, be it massage therapy, massage for relaxation, even a massage school.

This isn’t too terribly unusual. There are businesses, such as restaurants, that must do certain things that others don’t and other businesses that may not do things that others are allowed. A case in point is the tables and chairs on the porch in front of the Cattie Shack. In order for the tables and chairs to be in code, the convenience store needs to be operating as a restaurant, township officials have said.

But potential massage business owners must jump through more hoops than other business owners. Not only must they provide information their own personal and professional background for township scrutiny, they must do the same for their employees. They are not permitted to hire therapists without township approval.

Supervisors have heard several applications since the ordinance was enacted and most hearings were conducted in a professional, even-handed manner designed to elicit basic information required by the ordinance.

There was some sophomoric giggling and private joking about a possible “enema emporium” when one individual wanted to operate a colonic irrigation business at the site of the former Lucky Spa, but nothing beyond that.

That was until Don Lim’s hearing Sept. 2.

We must agree with Mr. Lim’s attorney, Brian Nagle, that some of the questions were irrelevant, that they went beyond the scope of the ordinance, questions about his business’ viability that other applicants in the past were not asked.

Such viability is of no legitimate concern to any government in a free society, and totally irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether the entrepreneur should be allowed to take his or her risk.

 We wonder why Mr. Lim was treated differently than other applicants, those who didn’t have to answer questions about how long a lease they would sign, the amount of rent they would pay or what would happen if they couldn’t make enough money to pay that rent.

Is the ordinance, and the manner in which it is applied, an example of due diligence on the part of supervisors in an attempt to prevent illegal activity, or is it a form of restraint of trade where only some people are allowed to tug on the brass ring?