QueensLand Hotel V Sex Workers Court Case

My opponent's main point is that the sex worker, known only as GK in court[1], improperly used the Queensland hotel as a place of business without notifying it. Thus, my opponent believes GK's eviction to be justified.From what I've gleaned, GK had legally paid the hotel for room rental purposes, and had been doing so for quite a long time prior to being evicted[1].Let me ask my opponent: What exactly does he consider 'proper' use?According to the Queensland anti-discrimination act in place at the time of the eviction considers the arbitrary discrimination of people based on a plethora of subjects to be illegal[2]. Among these is sexual activity.The facts established:1. GK had paid for legal use of the room. 2. GK engaged in sexual activity in the room. 3. Evicting GK based on her sexual activity is considered illegal discrimination under the concurrent Australian anti-discrimination laws at the time. We've established that the Queensland motel had in fact violated the abovementioned law, but that isn't the only law it has violated in refusing GK access to its premises based on her occupation. Here I'd like to elicit the Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991[2]Under this act, it is illegal to discriminate based on the following:"Sex, sexual harassment, sexuality, transsexuality, age, profession, trade, occupation or calling, relationship status, status as a parent or carer, pregnancy, race, racial vilification, religious or political conviction, impairment, membership or non-membership of association of employers or employees, breastfeeding, spent convictions, disability, religious practice in employment, having had one of the enumerated attributes in the past, or association with person with an above attribute."[2] The areas covered by this law include:"Work; employment agencies; education; access to premises; goods, services or facilities; accommodation; clubs; qualifying bodies; professional or trade organisations; requests etc for information."Prostitution is GK's trade/occupation, and the hotel's denying her access to its services/factilities based on her occupation alone explicitly violates this law. Again, these laws are concurrent, meaning they are in place at the time GK was evicted. In November 2012, the anti-discrimination law was revised. Legal sex-trade became limited to the following: Sex work conducted in a legal brothel: Outcalls are prohibited and only 6-8 workers are permitted on premise at all time. Private or sole operator work: It is illegal for a sole operator to work in conjunction with any other worker[3] My opponent says: "[I]'ll prove that Pro will win this case through the Anti-discrimination Act."The only way my opponent could possibly do so would be to use the new tenets of the 2012 Anti-Discrimination law. The eviction to GK occured in June 2010.[4] My opponent cannot therefore use this law to justify the Queensland hotel's obvious discrimination.Established:-The Queensland hotel violated two concurrent laws.-The Queensland hotel's actions were illegal and unjustified -Con's win condition has been fulfilled [1]http://www.qt.com.au...[2]http://www.humanrights.gov.au...[3]http://thefeed.com.au...[4]http://www.theage.com.au...