Here we go again
You want a rule of law but only when the courts rule in your favour.
The Court made a clear decision and rejected all the JR matters before it. Whether you like it or not, that is the ruling of the Court and the guidance stands
Either the person you quote was part of the court making the decision or its merely an opinion and not determinate
You really want to go around again? I'm aware that every time I reply to you, it can only have the effect of making you look a chump.
Does it not even as much as occur to you, that the GLP were hoping for a different interpretation, the Judge rejected it, therefore the status remains the same, and that is the position I'm arguing. I don't favour the judgment, as there's not much to favour and I've said as much.
But in terms of the question can an employer use a policy of trans inclusion, the answer is yes they can. The difference is that under the provision of using a legitimate aim using proportionate means, employers can, but only under the ground of gender reassignment and not under the ground of sex. It also means that if an employer does that, although measured against biological sex it becomes mixed sex, it does not follow that a policy that includes trans people can only be read to give permission for any man can use the toilet. A gateway analysis proves the point.
I'm left with an uncertainty about you. I have three choices, either to consider you incompetent as a lawyer, just another idiot on the internet who enjoys creating a spat and then trying to win it, or just a chump who has know idea why he's even here. Whichever way you seem to be just trolling.
What is clear, is that you are determined to just make it personal.
