Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo (modified): UK Government/Wikimedia Commons/Pixabay

In late September, the governor of California signed AB 1803 into law, which requires employers with more than five employees to implement “hate speech” training by January 1, 2028.

According to the law, the training must "provide supervisors and employees with practical guidance on how to recognize, report, and counter remarks made in the workplace that denigrate, humiliate, or incite hatred against individuals based on protected characteristics." The characteristics in question obviously include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."

As usual, the problem with the law is that it doesn’t provide a clear definition of hate. "Woke" people often have a broad understanding of hate that includes expressing disagreement with their views.

Training materials from the Department of Civil Rights, intended for its own employees, state that deliberately using the “wrong” pronoun to refer to a transgender person is a form of “harassment,” as is objecting to a transgender coworker using restrooms not designated for their gender.

The law makes no exception for churches. I would suggest limiting the training to this Gospel passage: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and slander you" (Matthew 5:44). But will the state of California be satisfied with teaching this gospel precept?

What is "hatred" anyway? We can distinguish between feelings of hatred, which involve wishing harm upon someone, and the will to hate, which involves actively intending to harm someone. Feelings of hatred are passive: one simply feels them. However, they can become problematic when harbored. It would be foolish to condemn someone simply for feeling hatred toward another person. Besides, how could one even prove it? The difficulty with the intent to hate is that an individual’s inner motivations are hard to prove. That is why the justice system traditionally focuses on the facts, attempting to determine if harm was caused and if the acts were intentional. Furthermore, hatred is not the only motivation for harming others. A thief does not necessarily hate those he steals from or intend to harm them, yet he still causes them harm.