This is the first post in what will be a series looking at the different aspects of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers due to be heard by the UK Supreme Court next month.
Thanks again, Michael. Could you briefly explain (or point to a good explainer for) why we seem to have a different framework for associations than for service providers? What's the rationale, as in, why can't this be standardised enough for lay people to be able to anticipate its impact, intuitively...?!
I'm interested in this too. My guess is that the intention was to be more generous to voluntary associations by permitting them to organise around PCs without needing to show that it's proportionate to exclude someone without the PC. The thinking seems to be that it shouldn't be presumptively illegitimate to discriminate in the context of a private voluntary association in the same way as it would for a more public facing service provider. And it just wasn't envisaged that determining whether or not someone has a particular PC would ever be seriously contentious.
Thanks again, Michael. Could you briefly explain (or point to a good explainer for) why we seem to have a different framework for associations than for service providers? What's the rationale, as in, why can't this be standardised enough for lay people to be able to anticipate its impact, intuitively...?!
I'm interested in this too. My guess is that the intention was to be more generous to voluntary associations by permitting them to organise around PCs without needing to show that it's proportionate to exclude someone without the PC. The thinking seems to be that it shouldn't be presumptively illegitimate to discriminate in the context of a private voluntary association in the same way as it would for a more public facing service provider. And it just wasn't envisaged that determining whether or not someone has a particular PC would ever be seriously contentious.