On Sunday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a newly enacted law in California. The law requires employers to give all employees “anti-hate speech” training. I have always had a problem with the concept of hate speech. Who determines what is hateful speech? If I am concerned about a friend’s health and tell her to lose weight, is that hate speech?

The article reports:

But as observers like the California Family Council (CFC) are pointing out, the legislation does not define “hate speech,” instead handing the job to the state’s Civil Rights Department. The bill mandates that the training must confront workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on what the state has already deemed a protected characteristic, which includes sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

The CFC goes on to observe that the statute, which will go into effect on January 1, 2028, never mentions churches or religious nonprofits and their First Amendment rights to hold sincerely held religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. It also “fails to separate protected expression from unlawful conduct,” noting that the Supreme Court held in 2017 that “the First Amendment has no hate speech exception.”

Greg Burt, who serves as vice president of CFC, further pointed out the problems with AB 1803’s vague language regarding key terms that it says constitute “hate.”

“What does it mean to vilify? What speech actually humiliates?” he wondered during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “[M]any times legislators consider many Christian beliefs when they’re expressed — especially regarding sexuality or gender — they accuse us of hating people. That’s [the] farthest thing from my mind. But we are simply advocating for our view that sex is determined by biology, and God created us both male and female. Well, to many people that is humiliating and that incites hatred. And so that’s the problem with this legislation.”

Burt went on to clarify that AB 1803 is being folded into a previously enacted statute that mandates sexual harassment training, which already specifies that using accurate biological pronouns constitutes “harassment.”

This is the camel’s nose under the tent. There is nothing in the First Amendment that limits speech. We need to follow our Constitution.