Download this publication - PULP

86 Chapter 3
academy, his position as a music teacher was not one of a religious or
spiritual leader, and since he was not required to teach religious doctrine,
his work was insufficiently close to the doctrinal core of the church to
justify an exemption to the Equality Act to permit the church to engage in
otherwise prohibited discrimination; (3) that Strydom's position as a music
teacher was analogous to ‘ordinary’ workers such as ‘a person in a
homosexual relationship … employed or contracted to do typing work as
a secretary’, 51 and whose jobs, unlike those of spiritual and religious
leaders, are excessively remote from the religious group's religious beliefs
and practices; (4) that, despite Strydom being a teacher in a church-run
academy, since it was not part of the job description in his contract that he
was required to lead an exemplary Christian life, he could not be
sanctioned for failing to ‘set a good example’ to students in the sense of
leading a lifestyle consistent with the beliefs and teachings of the church; 52
(5) that Strydom ‘was not in a position of leadership’ 53 relative to the
students; (6) that the church had no reason to be concerned about Strydom
having a bad influence on pupils since there was ‘not a shred of evidence
that [he] wanted to influence the students or any other church member’
and that, on the contrary, ‘he wanted to keep his homosexual relationship
to himself as he regarded it as a private matter’; 54 (7) that the church's
anxiety about condoning (and being seen to condone) a homosexual
relationship by failing to terminate Strydom's contract was misplaced,
since the church ‘could have stated that it was required by the Constitution
that they [sic] not discriminate on the basis of a person's sexual orientation
when concluding a contract of work’; 55 (8) that the impact of the
discrimination on Strydom was ‘enormous’, 56 since he had suffered
financially and psychologically as a result of his contract being terminated;
(9) that the burden on the church's religious liberty of permitting Strydom
to continue to provide teaching services under the contract was
‘minimal’; 57 and (10) that in the circumstances the right to be free from
unfair discrimination should prevail over the right to freedom of religion,
and that accordingly the church was not entitled to an exemption from the
Equality Act. 58
In what follows, I shall argue that steps (2), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of
the Court's reasoning are either questionable or false. I shall defend (1), (4),
(8) and the Court's ultimate finding in favour of Strydom expressed in (10).
I shall be concerned in particular to show that unqualified endorsement of
51
Strydom (n 8 above) para 24.
52 Strydom (n 8 above) para 22.
53 Strydom (n 8 above) para 32.
54
Strydom (n 8 above) para 22.
55 Strydom (n 8 above) para 24.
56 Strydom (n 8 above) para 25.
57
As above.
58 The Court awarded Strydom damages ‘for the impairment of [his] dignity and
emotional and psychological suffering’ and an additional amount for loss of earnings,
as well as ordering the church to respond unconditionally to Strydom (paras 37, 38 &
39).