Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
It's been said elsewhere that a similar case taken to the Supreme Court could well result in a different decision.
If correct, how would this fit in with the decision that we're talking about here  |
That’s not correct.
The Supreme Court is in the business of stating definitively what the laws passed by parliament actually mean. They have established that in the Equality Act 2010 the term ‘woman’ means, and has always meant, biologically female, as observed at birth, because that is consistent with the broader aims of the Act (which protects gender reassignment as a separate category) and previous anti-discrimination legislation, in which the modern faux-confusion over what a woman is simply wasn’t an issue at all.
The Supreme Court just will not make a ruling in any similar case that in any way contradicts what it has just ruled here. Why on earth would it do so?