QueensLand Hotel V Sex Workers Court Case

JUST FOR FUN: PRO While my opponent makes a compelling case against the Queensland hotel with his interpretation of the law, he has failed to register several other laws in this case that directly contend against his points.I would like to introduce Australia's Liquor Act of 1992. Under Division 6 of this act, which is titled 'Adult Entertainment Permit'[1]Please consider the following text from the Liquor Act's section 103P:"(1) An adult entertainment permit authorises the permittee to provide adult entertainment only— (a) in an area of the permittee's premises approved by the commissioner (the approved area); and (b) during the hours stated in the permit." As this act pertains specifically to business in liquor and Adult Entertainment, the case stands assuredly against the flesh trader GK, who's improper use of the Hotel premises without a permit to conduct her business is undeniable. Ironically, the defense for GK necessitates categorizing her conduct under occupation, as indicated by my opponent's argument which I will reiterate below: "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."The case against GK is that she both wasn't discriminated based on occupation (rather based on her occupational conduct within premises), and that she had violated the 1992 Liquor Act. It is explicitly stated within the act that Adult Entertainment must be licensed.Furthermore, Queensland Hotel's eviction of GK was not to her occupation, but to her conducting the exchange of her occupation within the premises of the Hotel. Prostitutes are allowed on hotel premises, but prohibiting the practice of prostitution within said premises is entirely up to the hotel management. It therefore has not violated any laws. Hence the case against the Queensland Hotel fails. GK's eviction was justified. CONThe Liquor Act argument comes down to the definition of commercial Adult Entertainment. Luckily, Adult Entertainment has been defined by the very same legislatural text source provided[1]. Under section 103N, the following is written:"(3) Adult entertainment does not include the performance of the following acts— (a) sexual intercourse; (b) masturbation; (c) oral sex. GK's actions cannot be considered Adult Entertainment as per this definition. Commercially provided sexual intercourse is still sexual intercourse. As explicitly written within the Liquor Act, sexual intercourse is not Adult Entertainment.[1]http://www.austlii.edu.au...Now to address the second argument, which states that GK was evicted based on business conduct within the Queensland Hotel's premises and not based on her actual business or trade. I would like to point out the ludicrous nature of this argument.Sexual activity without any monetary exchange is permitted, but those with monetary exchange isn't? Is this not arbitrary discrimination? Does this not violate the Queensland anti-discrimination act? The only difference between the cases presented is the monetary exchange. The Queensland Hotel evicted GK not because she was undergoing sexual intercourse, but because she had adopted sexual intercourse as a trade.The contention, that the Queensland Hotel has violated two concurrent anti-discrimination laws, is affirmed. It's actions were not legally justified, and GK wins the case.