• SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Are you a legal expert? Is the fact that this is “art” not a more complex legal issue?

    edit: Quote from the article: “Mona’s legal team will be relying on the tribunal’s interpretation of section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act, under which a person is permitted to discriminate against another person in a situation designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute – in this case gender. It is under clauses like this in most of Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation that organisations such as male-only clubs and women-only gyms are able to operate.”

    • Makhno@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Is the fact that this is “art” not a more complex legal issue?

      I’d say no. It’s a business, and it discriminates based on gender. Seems pretty black and white.

      If they weren’t an actual business and didn’t make profits, then that would make more sense from an “it’s art” defense

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Art is entitled to profit. Museums, cinema, theater, music concerts, all of those are art and are business. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. Artists are humans that need a livelihood as well and are also entitled to the revenue of their art to afford their continued creation of art.