When government agencies see it as their duty to promote immorality and thumb their noses at the moral majority – the ordinary citizenry – then you know we are in a bad way. Of course this has been occurring for much of human history. But it is getting worse in our secularised and increasingly amoral if not immoral culture.
That which is right is being spurned while that which is clearly wrong is being promoted, glamourised and given legal sanction. And ordinary law-abiding citizens are effectively being forced to commit evil, going against their own consciences.
Our coercive utopians are forcing business owners for example to go against their deeply held moral convictions and allow their establishments to become places where immorality abounds. So much for freedom – freedom of conscience is becoming a rare thing nowadays, and often it is the secular left elites who are bringing this about.
A classic case of this just occurred in Queensland. It seems the elites there are all in favour of the demeaning sex trade, but are fully against the rights of hotel owners to protect and preserve their own businesses. Here is how the story has been reported:
“A sex worker’s discrimination win against a Queensland motel has the accommodation industry alarmed. The Accommodation Association of Australia is worried the ruling robs hotel and motel owners of the right to refuse guests who might disturb others.
“The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled the owners of a motel in the mining town of Moranbah breached the Anti-discrimination Act for denying the sex worker a room. The woman had stayed at the motel 17 times in two years until the property’s owners discovered in 2010 she was bringing clients to her room. They then banned her from staying there.
“The Gold Coast-based sex worker lost her anti-discrimination case last year but appealed last month. 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 ruling could have broader implications for motels and hotels in Queensland’s mining boom towns.”
Needless to say this is greatly worrying many hotel owners. Another report puts it this way: “Mackay’s Nebo Rd accommodation strip was abuzz with outrage yesterday after a sex worker won the right to ply her trade from a Moranbah motel, even though its owners had banned her….
“Mackay motel owners expressed outrage, saying business owners should have the right to decide. Some are confronted about once a week by sex workers asking if they could use rooms for adult services. Pioneer Villa Motel owner Daryl Waldron said he would prefer to have an empty room than have a sex worker ply their trade. ‘Ultimately, motel owners should have the right to decide if they can work from their rooms… We can decline service to someone who is drunk at the bar; it should be similar to that. I have told my manager to turn them away.’
“Another Nebo Rd motel owner, who asked not to be named, said sex workers were more prominent in Mackay than other areas. ‘It brings disharmony to the entire motel. A lot of our business is with families, and they will be sitting outside their motel rooms having a cup of tea… a lot of the time it’s not half obvious what they are doing, it’s not what you want around families. It’s getting to the stage where they know we don’t want them here, so they are booking their rooms online and showing up late to check in so we don’t see them’.”
And of course the hookers are quite happy about all this: “A prostitute’s win against a Queensland motel paves the way for other sex workers to stand up against ‘systemic prejudice’, the national sex workers’ association says….
“The national sex workers’ association, the Scarlet Alliance, says GK’s victory paves the way for other sex workers in Queensland. ‘This is definitely a win for sex workers because it sends a clear message discrimination against them will not be accepted,’ the alliance’s chief executive Janelle Fawkes told AAP. ‘There is systemic discrimination against sex workers across Australia, and this will encourage others to come forward’.”
Discrimination – yeah right. Forget about the rights of small business owners. Forget about the rights of families. Forget about the well-being of children. Forget about the community good. Hookers of the world unite – your immorality is just peachy-keen according to the elites, and your “rights” to break up marriages and destroy families and decimate communities must come first.
Next thing you know our amoral elites will be saying drug-dealers have a right to set up shop in hotels. We don’t want them to be discriminated against after all. And while we are at it, let’s force all hotels to set up gambling dens, whether they like it or not. Gamblers have their rights too you know.
When our ruling elites legislate against moral citizens and moral business owners in favour of immoral money-making groups, then they are losing their legitimacy. As the late Charles Colson once put it: “Across America these days, governmental bodies are legislating what one philosopher calls ‘practical atheism.’ Despite all the rhetoric about Christians forcing their morality on other people, the truth is that secularists are forcing their brand of morality on us.”
Quite so. And it is getting worse by the day. What next: making it compulsory for every citizen to visit a hooker? Don’t laugh – we live in strange times. It may not be that far away.
10 Replies to “Legislating Immorality”
Besides the effects to children, family, businesses etc, there is the destructive & deadly consequences to the prostitutes which is well documented worldwide. Support it here & one supports the sex-slave trade, which is very bad in eastern Europe (see ‘notforsalecampain.org’). I thought that there were strict processes & laws about the setting-up of a brothel; Isn’t a room at a hotel by definition a brothel? Would a brothel be permitted to open at that site? Authorities authorized to be fools! Peace.
So when should we expect that there will be requests for school work experience for such an ‘occupation’?
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Bill.
If some one wants to set up a business they have to pay out money upfront to facilitate it. The necessary fixtures and fittings are the business owner’s tangible fixed assets. Someone setting up a business on the premises of someone else’s business short circuits paying those outgoings and would not be able to carry on the business without the host’s facilities. Also the activity of prostitution at premises designated as a hotel is going to have a negative and depreciating effect on the hotel business. I am no accountant but that is where the theft is.
Rachel Smith, UK
The jackals of the sex industry simply cannot contend, or pretend, otherwise…
Google for Scarlet Alliance, and this is what you see in the primary result listing for them:
“Scarlet Alliance recognise that Australia is a colony built upon Aboriginal land, we pay our respect to the elders and custodians of this land, current, past and …”
What on earth has that got to do with being a supposed “trade union for prostitutes”?
More leftie agenda rubbish.
I have read the judgement, along with other commentary, and Stewart, a brothel is defined in the act that supposedly legalises prostitution that a sole worker (not a street-walker) is not operating as a brothel, whereas two or more prostitutes would be defined as a brothel. Hence this rotten test case is about a single person only, identified by initials “GK”.
Rachel, I hope your argument can gain a win in the UK. Australian law needs to see some indicative judicial direction from there.
Peter Tatchell in Beyond Equality:
“The absurd laws against prostitution and pornography illustrate this point. Securing legal equality for queer sex workers would be a limited advance. Homosexual prostitutes, and their clients, would simply face equal criminalisation and harassment as their heterosexual counterparts. What is needed is the complete repeal of the laws against prostitution, and their replacement by legislation that recognises the right of people to control their own bodies and to use them in any way they wish, providing it is with consent and no one is harmed. A similar principle should apply to pornography. There is nothing shameful or obscene about the human body, including pricks and pussies. Sex is not dirty, but something to be shared and enjoyed. So why shouldn’t we be able to view explicit sexual acts, both hetero and homo? After all, using porn to wank with is a safe form of sex which can help reduce the spread of HIV. For people who are not able-bodied, young and handsome, and for those who find it difficult to meet sexual partners because they live in remote communities, porn is often one of their few means of sexual fulfilment. Why should it be disparaged and criminalised? It is not good enough to only seek an end to the way gay porn is more strictly censored than straight porn. Lots of explicit images of sexual acts between men and women are also banned. Equality with heterosexuals under the anti-porn laws would thus mean only a slight liberalisation while leaving the bulk of draconian censorship intact. What is required is a revision of the laws against pornography in their entireity. These five key ideas of queer politics represent a re-awakening of the radical utopian vision that fired the lesbian and gay liberation movement of the early 1970s. This vision was lost when civil rights and law reform came to dominate lesbian and gay campaigning in the conservative decade that followed. Now, in the 90s, radicalism is re-emerging in the updated and modernised form of queer politics. This new agenda confidently embraces the goals of both civil rights and sexual liberation. While supporting law reform, it also has a vision which goes beyond it. Queer politics is an idea whose time has come.”
One wonders whether a husband and wife would be banned from entering brothel because this would threaten the ethos of the hotel?
David Skinner, UK
Perhaps you should have called the article ‘Criminalising morality’.
Dear Bill, I have written to 4 State Parliamentarians about this issue. I also intend to write to the local paper about it. I trust the other people who have commented do not just to you but to Queensland parliamentarians.
Regards, Franklin Wood
The Qld Anti-discrimination Act protects “lawful sexual activity”, and defines this as lawful prostitution. But prostitution is lawful in Queensland only in licenced brothels. This decision would appear to be contrary to law.
My understanding is that there are two legal types of prostitution in Queensland: licensed brothels as you mentioned, and sole operators (private work).
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch