Allowing readers and chanters to serve as deacons is problematic, so it's good if you force us into realizing that
Eh. That presupposes that there is a distinct function that deacons exercise that the lower clergy are not supposed to exercise but they do so anyway. Is that really happening? And is there a common agreement on what belongs to the deacon and what does not? There are certain things on which we all seem to agree, but others that vary depending on the tradition.
In the Syriac tradition, the distinct ministry of the deacon in the Liturgy is the reading of the Gospel and the distribution of Holy Communion (if needed and with the blessing of the celebrant). No subdeacons, readers, or chanters do that, and typically deacons don't do these things either (even the Gospel). But if there is no deacon (or even if there is, again, as the celebrant directs), a minor cleric(s) will read the diptychs/litanies, use the liturgical fans, and one among these ranks will cense during the Liturgy (incense is always and only offered by the priest because it is his duty to offer sacrifices, but he will bless the minor cleric to do the actual censing except during those moments the rubrics specifically direct the priest to do so). Outside of the Liturgy, the deacons have other duties proper to their order which the lower clerics do not do.
Now, this is different from Byzantine tradition. Deacons will read the Gospel and assist with Communion as needed, but typically censing and litanies are also reserved for them. Since the fans are given to them at their ordinations, this is also their duty. Slavs seem to be better about this than the Greeks, but not by too much: I've seen Greek subdeacons/acolytes censing during the Great Entrance, and I've seen Antiochian subdeacons leading litanies and censing. And the fans are almost always delegated to little kids unless you've got like ten deacons. And it seems almost anyone can put incense in the censer (which, from our perspective, is absolutely disordered, even if you bring it to the priest to bless after the fact).
So the Byzantine tradition seems "stricter" in one sense than the Syriac tradition, but not really. And in the one thing both traditions agree are proper to deacons, no minor clerics perform those functions. If we extend the comparison to encompass the other liturgical traditions (Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian), I think we'll see this trend confirmed in rubrics, in their interpretations, in canonical literature, and so on. Unless you can demonstrate that these are matters of faith on which there can be no disagreement, I think it's foolish not to admit that there is a diversity of practice with an underlying unity, and let it be. As long as we maintain each tradition as is, without incorporating "foreign" elements that would not make sense in a new context, there really shouldn't be a serious issue.
I would think a bigger obstacle would be EO belly dance and yoga classes after the Liturgy in the church hall.
That's a new one for me. EO church halls seem to be problematic, though. The OCA parish I attended while in college had a full service bar in an antechamber of the hall. I'm not a prohibitionist by any means, but that's too much even for me.