California Pastors Sound Alarm Over Newsom’s New Hate Speech Law

A new California law signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is sparking a fierce backlash from Christian pastors and religious organizations, who warn that the measure could put traditional biblical teachings on marriage and sexuality at odds with state-mandated workplace training.

The controversy centers on Assembly Bill 1803, which will require employers with five or more workers who are covered by California’s existing harassment-training law to include instruction on recognizing and addressing hate speech in the workplace.

The law takes effect January 1, 2028, but religious leaders are already raising concerns about how it could affect churches, Christian schools and faith-based organizations.

Unlike a direct ban on religious speech, the legislation expands training requirements that many California employers must already follow. Critics argue, however, that the new language could eventually be used to pressure religious employers to adopt state-approved views on sensitive moral and social issues.

Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, told Fox News Digital that he believes the state is attempting to influence how residents think about gender and sexual orientation.

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

He argued that the state’s existing training materials already present conservative Christian perspectives negatively, raising questions about how the additional instruction will be implemented.

The new law requires employers to provide guidance on identifying, reporting and addressing workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates or encourages hatred toward people based on legally protected characteristics.

Those protections extend beyond sexual orientation and gender identity to include religion, race, national origin and other categories covered by California employment law.

However, opponents say the legislation does not clearly establish where offensive speech ends and protected religious expression begins.

“You cannot regulate what you cannot define,” Burt told lawmakers during a legislative hearing earlier this year.

Pastor Paul Chappell of Lancaster Baptist Church has also criticized the measure, arguing that its wording could encourage bias against Christians who hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality.

The controversy has intensified because the law does not include an explicit exemption for churches or religious organizations within its new training provision.

That omission has concerned some church leaders, although the legislation does not eliminate religious protections already established under state and federal law.

Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills offered one of the strongest responses, accusing California lawmakers of improperly inserting government authority into church affairs.

“It is an encroachment upon the church,” Hibbs told Fox News Digital.

He argued that the government was attempting to assume a moral authority traditionally associated with religious institutions.

Hibbs went further, describing the law as a threat to the independence of churches and suggesting that its requirements could face legal challenges.

Supporters of the legislation strongly disagree with that interpretation.

Democratic Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, who introduced AB 1803, says the measure is intended to address workplace harassment and help employers prevent discrimination before it escalates.

California already requires employers with at least five employees to provide harassment-prevention training every two years.

Supervisors must receive at least two hours of instruction, while nonsupervisory employees must complete at least one hour.

The new law does not create a separate course or increase those required training hours. Instead, employers must incorporate the additional material into their existing programs.

Lowenthal has argued that workplace training should address hateful conduct targeting employees based on race, religion, ethnicity and other protected characteristics.

The California Legislative Jewish Caucus also supported the measure, identifying it as part of a broader effort to address antisemitism and other forms of discrimination.

Supporters maintain that the legislation is about creating safer workplaces, not regulating religious sermons or forcing individuals to abandon their personal beliefs.

Still, critics remain concerned about how the rules could be interpreted once employers begin updating their training materials.

The California Family Council argues that the law’s broad language leaves too much discretion to employers, trainers and state regulators when determining what constitutes hateful workplace speech.

That uncertainty, the organization warns, could lead to disputes involving employees who express sincerely held religious beliefs.

The legal distinction between religious doctrine and workplace harassment will be central to those disputes.

Federal and state laws generally protect religious beliefs, but those protections do not automatically exempt every religious organization from all employment regulations or permit otherwise unlawful harassment.

California law also contains existing religious-organization exemptions in certain employment contexts. Whether a particular church or ministry must comply with the new training requirement will depend on the applicable legal provisions and the organization’s circumstances.

Importantly, AB 1803 does not establish a new criminal penalty for expressing traditional Christian beliefs, and it does not authorize the state to dictate the content of Sunday sermons.

The law’s principal enforcement mechanism allows California’s Civil Rights Department to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with the training requirements.

That distinction has not eased the concerns of pastors who believe government-mandated instruction could eventually blur the boundaries between preventing discrimination and policing religious viewpoints.

Newsom signed the measure September 27, giving employers more than a year to prepare before the requirements begin in 2028.

For now, no court has ruled that AB 1803 violates religious freedom protections, and the controversy centers on how the law may be interpreted and enforced.

As California prepares to implement the changes, church leaders and religious advocacy organizations are continuing to question whether the state has drawn an appropriate line between protecting workers from harassment and respecting freedom of conscience.

The answer may ultimately depend on how the new rules are applied once they take effect.