That wouldn't legitimize our commercial couple in the Vegas hotel, Todd, in fact just the opposite: they would then be breaking the law by not being in licensed premises, by not having had the required tests and by not wearing a condom.
Well, I said "for starters," and then I went on to say that I'm not qualified to answer questions like that. I'm sorry, but I'm not. Given time, it's entirely possible the situation you describe might be allowed. It's also possible it wouldn't.
However, it's my understanding that the hotel situation is already sort of a gray area. Yes, the current law says that prostitution can only take place in brothels, but there's apparently some legal ambiguity about when exactly the "prostitution" takes place: is it when the sex takes place, or is it when the money changes hands? You can make a good argument that, legally, it's the latter: police certainly think so, since they arrest hookers and johns when money is exchanged, even though no sex has taken place yet. So if someone goes to a brothel, makes a deal and pays for it, and then he and the woman go to a hotel for the night, is that breaking the law?
I also wouldn't have a problem with a "hotel exception" explicitly written into the law -- one advantage of centralizing things in brothels is security for the women, but I think hotels could work if they guaranteed certain standards of security as well. It would have to be opt-in, obviously (sort of like getting a liquor license), and frankly I don't think there would be a lot of takers, but hey, that's their business.
As for condom use, I forgot that was part of your example. No, I think condom use should always be required. It's just a matter of public health. Yes, that means that the "commercial couple" can't do everything that the regular couple can, but that's already the case in a lot of areas. Like Slingblade points out, professional chefs have to follow procedures that ordinary people in their kitchens don't. Same deal here. It's for the safety of the employees
and their clients.