Prostitute wins discrimination case against hotels Australia
samsung1
Ohio
Do prostitutes have the right to work in hotels in Australia, regardless of whether a hotel owner wants them there or not?
That's the surprising question that Australia's lodging industry is grappling with this week, in light of a unexpected ruling in a sex worker's discrimination case against a Queensland motel, according to a variety of news outlets.
The court ruled the owners of a motel in the mining town of Moranbah breached the country's Anti-Discrimination Act when denying the sex worker a room, Australia's Courier Mail reports. Prostitution is legal in Queensland.
TWITTER: Follow Barb DeLollis on Twitter
The woman - identified only as GK - had stayed at the motel 17 times in two years until 2010, when the owners found she was bringing clients there, the Courier Mail says. At that point, the motel banned her. She first lost her anti-discrimination case, but appealed last month and won, the article says.
"She won after her lawyer argued many people used the telephone or internet at the motel for business, and a bed was no different," the Courier Mail article says.
The tribunal's reasons for its decision have not yet been made public, according to London's Guardian.
Australia's sex industry sees the ruling as a major victory - but lodging industry views it in an entirely different way, the Guardian's article says. Lodging owners are left wondering if they can still refuse to rent a room to an undesirable guest such as a prostitute who's bringing clients through their doors.
"It's absolutely illogical," Richard Munro, CEO of the Accommodation Association of Australia, told the Guardian. "If a hairdresser decided to set up shop in the motel and started inviting people in to get their hair cut, I think the motel owner would have the right to say, 'Hang on, that's a different business operating out of my business.
"If a prostitute decided to start working out of a shopping mall, the owners would have something to say about it. There is some protection for the rights of the motel owner here."
Munro suggests that laws should be changed to ensure that lodging owners have the power to decide what sort of businesses are being operated under their roofs, the story says.
Implications for mining boom towns
The case highlights life in Australia's mining boom towns.
The Australian newspaper says the "discrimination ruling could have broader implications for motels and hotels in Queensland's mining boom towns as the shift to fly-in, fly-out workforces has also fueled a fly-in, fly-out sex trade."
Prostitutes have been heading to towns such as Moranbah, where they are able to work for short periods of time and get plenty of business, the stories say.
http://travel.usatoday.com/hotels/post/2…
That's the surprising question that Australia's lodging industry is grappling with this week, in light of a unexpected ruling in a sex worker's discrimination case against a Queensland motel, according to a variety of news outlets.
The court ruled the owners of a motel in the mining town of Moranbah breached the country's Anti-Discrimination Act when denying the sex worker a room, Australia's Courier Mail reports. Prostitution is legal in Queensland.
TWITTER: Follow Barb DeLollis on Twitter
The woman - identified only as GK - had stayed at the motel 17 times in two years until 2010, when the owners found she was bringing clients there, the Courier Mail says. At that point, the motel banned her. She first lost her anti-discrimination case, but appealed last month and won, the article says.
"She won after her lawyer argued many people used the telephone or internet at the motel for business, and a bed was no different," the Courier Mail article says.
The tribunal's reasons for its decision have not yet been made public, according to London's Guardian.
Australia's sex industry sees the ruling as a major victory - but lodging industry views it in an entirely different way, the Guardian's article says. Lodging owners are left wondering if they can still refuse to rent a room to an undesirable guest such as a prostitute who's bringing clients through their doors.
"It's absolutely illogical," Richard Munro, CEO of the Accommodation Association of Australia, told the Guardian. "If a hairdresser decided to set up shop in the motel and started inviting people in to get their hair cut, I think the motel owner would have the right to say, 'Hang on, that's a different business operating out of my business.
"If a prostitute decided to start working out of a shopping mall, the owners would have something to say about it. There is some protection for the rights of the motel owner here."
Munro suggests that laws should be changed to ensure that lodging owners have the power to decide what sort of businesses are being operated under their roofs, the story says.
Implications for mining boom towns
The case highlights life in Australia's mining boom towns.
The Australian newspaper says the "discrimination ruling could have broader implications for motels and hotels in Queensland's mining boom towns as the shift to fly-in, fly-out workforces has also fueled a fly-in, fly-out sex trade."
Prostitutes have been heading to towns such as Moranbah, where they are able to work for short periods of time and get plenty of business, the stories say.
http://travel.usatoday.com/hotels/post/2…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
3 comments
Run a different scenario: an executive at a meat distributor rents a room at a hotel run by a vegan. It is a small town so there is only a single hotel. He wants to expand distribution to a new city and holds a small meeting at the hotel. The vegan owner feels that the executive's business, although legal, is immoral and refuses to ever rent to him. None of the activities he engaged in disrupted to other guests or the hotel. Did the vegan have the right to do what they did?
Another scenario: hotel owner refuses service solely on the basis of race. The guest did nothing other than be the "wrong" color. Would that be ok?
My understanding is that prostitution is legal in Australia, so the motel owner was kicking out a client who broke no law. If she conducted her business only behind closed doors and didn't disrupt anybody else in the hotel, she should be left alone. If she was disrupting the owner's business (not just doing stuff he considered immoral) then I completely agree that the owner has a right to kick her the hell out of his establishment.