Christian Pastors Argue That the New California LGBTQ Hate Speech Law Is Disguised as Indoctrination

Christian pastors are pushing back against California's new workplace hate-speech training law, warning that it could put traditional religious beliefs about sexuality and gender at odds with state requirements.

Assembly Bill 1803, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on 27 September 2026, adds anti-hate-speech training to California's existing workplace sexual harassment training framework. The additional requirement is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2028.

The California Family Council, which opposed the legislation, and several pastors argue that the measure could give the state too much influence over how religious beliefs are expressed in workplace settings.

The legislation has prompted debate over religious freedom and workplace protections, with critics warning that its training requirements could create conflicts for employers and employees with traditional religious beliefs.

Why Are Christian Leaders Raising the Alarm?

Under AB 1803, employers covered by California's existing harassment-training requirements must include guidance on recognising, reporting and confronting workplace speech that 'vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred' against people because of protected characteristics.

These characteristics include race, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. The statutory wording does not establish a blanket ban on expressing disagreement about sexuality or gender.

Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, argues that the training could promote a state-backed approach to contentious questions about gender and sexuality.

'California has gotten excited about its ability to retrain the entire population regarding what they believe about gender and sexual orientation,' Burt said.

He has also criticised training material produced by California's Civil Rights Department, arguing that it portrays conservative views on gender and sexuality negatively. This reflects Burt's interpretation of the material, rather than proof that employees will be required to abandon their religious beliefs.

Burt's concerns centre on how employers might handle complaints when employees express religious beliefs about same-sex relationships or gender identity. He has warned that employers could face difficult decisions over workplace conduct and potential legal disputes.

What Did Pastors Say About the Law?

Dr Paul Chappell, senior pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, has also criticised AB 1803. Speaking on the Todd Starnes podcast, he described the bill as poorly written and argued that it could introduce bias against conservatives.

Another critic, Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, accused California lawmakers of overstepping their authority. He described the measure as 'an encroachment upon the church' and argued that it could intrude on religious institutions' ability to express their beliefs.

The bill does not expressly provide a church-specific exemption from the training requirement. How the provision applies to a particular religious institution may depend on its circumstances and the relevant legal protections.

Christian leaders fear the requirements could place religious organisations and employers in difficult positions when workplace conduct rules intersect with religious convictions. These concerns describe the critics' anticipated consequences, rather than establishing that churches will automatically be prohibited from teaching their beliefs.

What Does the Legislation Mean for Employers?

The new requirement forms part of Section 12950.1 of the California Government Code, which governs workplace sexual harassment training. The existing framework generally covers employers with five or more employees, subject to the law's specific requirements.

Burt has argued that the legislation does not clearly define the term 'hate speech'. Critics say this could create uncertainty for employers deciding how to handle complaints about workplace comments.

However, the provision does not itself establish a standalone criminal offence for expressing a religious belief. Nor does its wording amount to an explicit, blanket prohibition on traditional Christian teachings about sexuality or gender.

The precise implications for individual employers and religious organisations will depend on the statutory requirements and how they are applied. Claims that the measure will prevent churches from expressing their beliefs would require further legal support.

How Have LGBTQ+ Advocates Responded?

Equality California, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation that supported the legislation, was among the groups associated with the measure's push for stronger workplace protections against harassment targeting people because of protected characteristics.

The organisation declined to comment when approached for the original report. The governor's office and California's Civil Rights Department were also contacted for comment.

The dispute highlights competing concerns. Conservative Christian critics fear the training requirements could put employers in difficult positions when workplace policies intersect with religious beliefs. Supporters argue that stronger training can help workplaces respond to harassment targeting people because of protected characteristics.