Assembly Bill 1803 sounds like nothing more than a standard addition to California employment law. But there are actually much bigger issues hiding underneath this bill, all of which have great implications for your free speech, your religious liberty, and even your church. So today, let's shine a light on what's really happening in California and expose the works of darkness hiding behind this legislation.
California Adds “Anti-Hate Speech” to Employee Training
On September 27th, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1803 into law. At first glance, this bill sounds like a pretty mundane piece of employment legislation. It deals with something as exciting as legally mandated employee training! But what is important for you to understand is that its implications reach far beyond the typical workplace. Its most significant implications may be for nonprofit organizations, including churches.
So, what does the bill actually do? Under existing California law, employers with five or more employees are required to provide harassment prevention training every two years. Supervisors must receive two hours of training, while nonsupervisory employees must receive one hour. These trainings cover topics such as sexual harassment, the prevention of abusive conduct, and harassment based on characteristics like gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.[1]
I'm sure many of you know this from personal experience! Every other year, I have to sit through one of these sexual harassment prevention trainings. It's always a bit of a pain, and honestly, it can feel pretty unnecessary. I think I understand as a normal, functioning adult, how not to harass people. Well, except for my husband, who I do work from home with, blurring the lines a bit. But, that aside, now you know why your employer makes you do it: it's required by California law.
So, what new topic is California adding to this already mandatory training? That’s where things get interesting.
Starting on January 1, 2028, AB 1803 requires employers to include “anti-hate speech training” as a component of the existing harassment prevention training. The bill defines this training as, “practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on protected characteristics.”[2] These protected characteristics include age, national origin, disability, gender, race, religion, sex, and, you guessed it, sexual orientation.[3]
Who does this apply to? The existing requirements apply to all employers with over five employees, and this addition would apply to the same group of companies. However, it’s extremely important to note – this is not just for public and private employers, but also for not-for-profit organizations, which includes religious groups such as churches. This means that any church, or any religious not-for-profit, will be required by state law to teach its employees what the state defines as hate, regardless of their own personally held religious beliefs.
Immediate Reactions to this Bill
My immediate reaction to this bill is that it isn’t good.
The first problem is that it’s vague, overly broad, and impossible to define. The bill’s own author admitted when presenting AB 1803 that it does not define what hate speech is. Yet, at the same time, we know exactly what the state considers hate speech. According to research done by the California Family Council, the California Civil Rights Department’s own supervisor and employee module trains employees that using the wrong pronoun for a transgender identified person on purpose is harassment, as well as objecting to a coworker’s use of a restroom that does not match their sex.[4] That’s deeply problematic for churches that adhere to a biblical understanding of sexuality and gender. So, by leaving the term “hate speech” undefined, the state reserves for itself the right to define it however it sees fit on a case-by-case basis.
The second problem is that this appears to infringe on religious liberties. I mean, we have a constitutionally protected right to religious freedom – meaning that churches, which specifically exist to teach their religious beliefs, should not be told by the state what it must educate its members, employees included, to believe. The Christian church teaches things that are increasingly unpopular in our culture. These include the beliefs that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman for life, that God created humanity to be male and female, and that those are immutable characteristics of one’s identity. So, under this law, what happens when the state inevitably decides that expressing these beliefs is itself an act of hatred? Are churches supposed to teach their members that on one hand, the Bible teaches these things, but on the other hand these teachings are hateful? That infringes on the religious freedom we are afforded in America to not be told by our government what to believe.
The third problem is that this is far-reaching beyond the government’s responsibility or power. The government should not have a right to tell employers – religious institutions especially – what it needs to train its employees on. The entire idea that the government can mandate these types of training, that are so blatantly built upon ideology, not just laws of the state, is ridiculous. Does the state also get to mandate what I teach my child in my home? I’m sure they would love to. What about my conversations with my friends or husband? How does training employees on “hate speech” have anything to do with their core job functions? Employers should not just be avenues for the state to push their garbage, woke ideology into the public sphere.
Defining “Hate Speech”
I want to dive deeper into each of these problems, because these are serious, and will likely have serious ramifications for your life in our state. I mentioned the first issue is that “hate speech” is vague, broad, and undefined by the bill. So, what IS hate speech and how have we seen it applied in our state?
California lawmakers have already shown how quickly they apply the label “hate” to speech they disagree with. The California Family Council gives us clear examples of this:
· In 2025, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur compared efforts to keep boys out of girls' sports to Nazi Germany. He's also a co-author of AB 1803.
· In 2023, when Christian advocate Sophia Lorey testified that males cannot have menstrual cycles while opposing a bill requiring menstrual products in men's restrooms in state buildings, Senator Scott Wiener called the opposition “anti-LGBTQ hate groups.” Other Democratic senators and the bill's author similarly characterized the testimony as hateful, biased, and dangerous.
· Just this spring, a witness raising concerns about mixed-sex locker rooms told lawmakers that Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva accused her coalition of “spewing hate.”[5]
So, when people raise legitimate concerns about public policy, citing biological fact or advocating for girls' privacy, our lawmakers characterize that as hate speech. That is what your employer, and your church, is required to train you and its other employees not to say.
Do you want your employer deciding that your sincerely held religious or political beliefs are hateful because the law is so broadly worded that they feel compelled to treat those beliefs as potentially offensive? What kind of environment does that create for Christians in the workplace who disagree with using someone’s preferred pronouns, or conservatives who disagree with their liberal coworkers celebrating the 2026 blue tsunami?
This is already the case across America. An Ipsos survey found that three in five workers already fear sharing their religious or political views at work. Additionally, Cato Institute polling shows 32 percent of employed Americans worry their political beliefs could cost them their job.[6] These kinds of laws silence one side – the side whose beliefs do not agree with the state’s. That’s a scary place to be, and you are likely already feeling it.
If California wants to write these types of protections into law, it must be specific. But it isn’t specific for a purpose – so that it is harder to challenge upfront on its legality, and so that it can choose when to apply it.
First Amendment Questions
Speaking of legal challenges, how in the world did a law like this pass in the United States? How does this interact with the First Amendment’s protections of speech and religion?
It’s critical to understand that “hate speech” is not a separate legal category from the speech protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government cannot ban, censor, or punish speech simply because its message is offensive, bigoted, or widely condemned.[7] That being said, hateful language loses First Amendment protection if it crosses the line into specific, recognized legal exceptions, such as true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation, and then – the trickiest category – discriminatory harassment.[8] So the idea is that in America, you have a right to say whatever you want, but only insofar as that does not cross certain thresholds either into or resulting in action.
The problem is that the idea of something being “hate speech” is highly subjective. What do you define as hate? Increasingly, our culture defines disagreement as toxic. Parents who do not affirm their child’s gender are often labeled as “hateful” as their love for their child is questioned. But does that mean the church must now teach the ever-shifting standards of the culture?
Let’s throw it back to the 1900s and examine some court case examples of how hate speech has been handled by the Supreme Court. One of the most notable examples is the 1977 case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. A Nazi organization wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, a community with a significant Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors. Understandably, the proposed demonstration was deeply offensive and distressing to the community. But the courts recognized that the government could not prohibit the demonstration simply because its message was hateful.[9]
Then, in 1992, the Supreme Court decided R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, striking down a city ordinance that prohibited certain symbols and expressions based on race, religion, and other characteristics. The Court ruled that the government cannot selectively restrict speech simply because it disapproves of the particular viewpoint being expressed. And in 2011, the Court reaffirmed these principles in Snyder v. Phelps, ruling that even deeply offensive expression outside a military funeral was constitutionally protected under the circumstances of that case.[10]
In each of these cases, the Supreme Court wasn't endorsing the messages being expressed. These are some egregious uses of speech! But what the court has long upheld is the idea that the government does not get to decide that speech is unprotected simply because it is offensive, hateful, or unpopular. The government’s power must be extremely specific and limited if it is going to infringe on the first amendment right guaranteed to all Americans. There are exceptions for things like true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, and certain forms of unlawful harassment. But there is a very important distinction between speech that people find offensive and speech that the government has a legitimate constitutional basis to restrict.
AB 1803 is opposite to this fundamental idea and therefore opposed to freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. Why? Well, as already established, it is not specific, and therefore its application is not narrowly limited. When the state uses vague language to regulate how employers identify and respond to speech, it creates room for protected expression to be swept into the category of hateful or unacceptable speech. If employers are legally required to train their employees to recognize and confront certain categories of speech, but the state hasn't clearly defined what falls into those categories, then employers will certainly err on the side of caution to hedge their bets against having a lawsuit on their hands. This undermines the protections we all rightfully have under our Constitution.
But it moves even further into infringing on your religious liberties, as the state seeks to define what you must believe is hateful…even if that goes against what the Bible says. The government should not be in the business of dictating how Christians understand or express their religious beliefs, and that includes what they teach to their employees.
Clear Abuse of Power
So, AB 1803 raises some serious ideological and constitutional questions. I have a hard time seeing how this law avoids significant legal challenges, particularly once employers begin implementing it and real-world disputes arise.
This is the most frustrating part of this bill. Our lawmakers were warned about these problems! The Senate Labor Committee's own analysis pointed out that the bill doesn't define hate speech, doesn't clearly distinguish protected speech from unprotected speech, and could lead employers to discourage constitutionally protected expression just to avoid getting into trouble. But the bill moved forward![11]
This is part of a much larger pattern we've seen in California. The Legislature passes controversial laws despite serious constitutional objections, the state defends those laws in court, and ordinary Californians are left dealing with the consequences while the legal process plays out. We've seen this with California's gun laws, where restrictions have faced years of litigation, injunctions, appeals, and conflicting court rulings. In some cases, laws have been blocked by lower courts only to be reinstated on appeal. In others, portions of California's restrictions have been struck down.
The problem with this is that a law doesn't have to survive its eventual constitutional challenge to cause real harm. Laws like AB 1803 will put people in the position of choosing between expressing their convictions and avoiding potential consequences, which is exactly what our Constitution is supposed to prevent. The courts may eventually settle the legal questions surrounding AB 1803, but Californians shouldn't have to spend years waiting for that to happen before their constitutional rights are taken seriously. It’s an absolute abuse of power by our government.
What Now?
So, what now? What can you do?
Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do to change it. This law is passed, and your lawmakers, the people who represent you in your government, agree with it. I wish I had an action item for you, but I don’t.
But just because you can’t change this law today, doesn’t mean there is nothing for you to do. What you can do – what you must do – is refuse to be bullied by our government and refuse to do anything that goes against your sincerely held religious beliefs.
We are entering a new season for the next few years. The past year has been momentum and anticipation as we led up to the midterm election. We knew the Governor would be on the ballot, and there would be lots of opportunities to make real change. Different representatives, voter-proposed legislation, and real chances to push our state in a better direction. We are not there anymore.
We have our last few months with Gavin Newsom, who all too eagerly passed this bill knowing he wouldn’t suffer political repercussions from it. Come January, we will have a brand-new, just-as-liberal Governor who will support legislation just like this. We have a 75% Democrat majority in both houses of the California legislature, both of our federal Senate seats are Democrats, and we now only have roughly 7% of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. So, if I’m being totally honest with you, there’s no hope of changing this.
Which means the season we have just entered is one of faithfulness, obedience, and courage. We must remain faithful to what we know is true, obedient to God and to what He has revealed in His Word, and courageous when the state and the supermajority of our government opposes it. Which means that while AB 1803 has the power to legally mandate what employers teach their employees, you have the moral imperative to do what is right before God.
This means if you are an employee, you might face consequences for acting in honesty and in love. Your refusal to lie to someone about their gender will be called hate. Your choice to ignore worldly definitions of hate and instead pursue what is biblically right could cost you much. If you are a church leader, you cannot lie to your employees. You cannot call good what God calls evil, no matter what the state says. If you are a pastor, your job is lot scarier. You preach from the pulpit truths that California could choose to classify as hate speech. That is a serious and weighty reality.
But we have no other choice than to be faithful and obedient. The state does not get to force you into committing sin. God requires that you stand firm.
So, expose the works of darkness by being honest about what is going on in our government. Push back against evil by refusing to bow to it. And take courage…because we’re going to need a whole lot of it in the days, weeks, and years to come.
References:
[1] Lavaroni, Kaitlyn L. “California Expands Harassment Prevention Training to Address Hate Speech.” California Workplace Law Blog, October 23, 2026. https://www.californiaworkplacelawblog.com/2026/09/articles/workplace-training/california-expands-harassment-prevention-training-to-address-hate-speech/.
[2] Digital Democracy. “AB 1803: Employment: Sexual Harassment Training and Education: Anti-hate Speech Training.,” September 27, 2026. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab1803.
[3] Roth, Negin P. “New Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirements - Fenton &Amp; Keller, Attorneys at Law.” Fenton & Keller, Attorneys at Law (blog), August 28, 2026. https://fentonkeller.com/fk-articles/new-anti-hate-speech-training-requirements/.
[4] California Family Council. “Newsom Just Made Nearly Every Employer a Hate Speech Instructor,” October 5, 2026. https://www.californiafamily.org/2026/10/newsom-just-made-nearly-every-employer-a-hate-speech-instructor/.
[5] California Family Council, “Newsom Just Made Nearly Every Employer a Hate Speech Instructor.”
[6] California Family Council. “AB 1803,” March 16, 2026. https://watchdog.californiafamily.org/public/bills/2026/AB_1803.
[7] Stanford University. “Protected Speech, Discrimination, and Harassment.” Office of Community Standards, n.d. https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/resources%23additional-resources/protected-speech-discrimination-and-harassment.
[8] Killion, Victoria. “The First Amendment: Categories of Speech.” Congress.gov, March 28, 2024. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11072.
[9] Head, Tom. “6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases,” May 8, 2025. https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. “California Adds Anti-Hate Speech Component to Mandatory Harassment Prevention Training - Ogletree.” Ogletree, September 30, 2026. https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/california-adds-anti-hate-speech-component-to-mandatory-harassment-prevention-training/.
