Soon every employer in California with five or more employees will be required to impose hate speech training on its workers. This is because on September 27, 2026, California’s governor signed two bills that turn a vague and politically loaded term into a mandatory training requirement.
California Bill AB 1803 folds “anti-hate” instruction into the sexual harassment training that AB 1578 already requires of employers with five or more workers. Under the new law, the “anti-hate” training mandate commences January 1, 2028. California law does not define what constitutes “hate speech.”
Paul Chappell, pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, says AB 1803 is poorly written and attempts to create bias against conservatives. Instead of offering a definition of hate, AB 1803 requires employer training on how to recognize, report, and confront workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against people based on protected characteristics. The list of protected characteristics includes sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
AB 1803 can be seen as a rather pernicious bill because it fails to define the three relevant verbs: vilify, humiliate, and incite hatred. Careful readers should note that the rest of the world provides a preview.
Finland, for example, has prosecuted and convicted a member of parliament over a 2004 church pamphlet on biblical sexual ethics. This past June, Canada enacted its Combatting Hate Act, which repeals Canada’s long-standing defense for good-faith religious opinion in its hate propaganda laws. In addition, California’s Civil Rights Department already teaches that acting on a biblical view of sex can constitute harassment. Consequently, the California Family Council opposes the hate-training requirement contained in bill AB 1803.
Importantly, readers should distinguish the new “anti-hate” training and instruction requirement from existing anti-harassment law. Existing anti-harassment rules do not explicitly exempt churches or religious institutions. Similarly, the newly instituted anti-harassment training rules do not exempt places of worship.
Equally important, the California Civil Rights Department’s supervisor and employee training module states that intentionally using the wrong pronoun for a transgender-identified person constitutes illegal harassment. Additionally, the Civil Rights Department training approach treats objections to a coworker’s use of a restroom that does not match their sex as a form of harassment.
These efforts mirror the views of four members of the California state legislature who have condemned the views of opponents of laws mandating the placement of tampons and other menstrual products in men’s restrooms in state buildings. Opponents of such laws are labeled “hateful.” Reacting to such belligerent claims, the California Family Council observes that four members of the state legislature heard a biology lesson and called it hate.
Nevertheless, California insists that it can regulate what it cannot define. This means that unpopular religious beliefs about sexuality or gender will be labeled “hateful.” The result of such moves inevitably means that proponents of unpopular ideas will be attacked as members of “hate groups” despite the United States Constitution's protection of the free exercise of religion and free dissemination of unpopular ideas.
Readers should note that the First Amendment does not permit government—state or federal—to compel “anti-hate speech.” The United States Supreme Court has consistently determined that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. As the California Family Council notes, in Matal v. Tam (2017), the Court held unanimously that the government may not prohibit speech simply because it is deemed hateful or offensive.
California’s passage of AB 1803 constitutes an illegal attempt to compel employers to endorse the government’s preferred speech norms. This compelled speech violates the First Amendment and does not align with the principles articulated in Wooley v. Maynard (1977).
In addition, AB 1803 threatens religious employers and employees with conscience conflicts since the law provides no religious exemption or conscience protection. Employees and employers who hold Biblical religious convictions could and likely would be required to sit through or deliver training that characterizes their beliefs as a form of hate.
In response to the passage of AB 1803, churches, as employers, should be prepared to put their objections and requests for state accommodation in writing. Churches and Christian ministries with more than five employees should talk to their attorney and be prepared to contact the Alliance Defending Freedom, First Liberty, Liberty Counsel, or other legal organizations that are prepared to take their case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.
Failure to prepare now for litigation will likely produce a torrent of regrets later.