‘Compelled speech is not tolerance. It’s tyranny’: California Family Council rips state Supreme Court free speech decision in pronoun case, considers appeal

The California Family Council is sounding the alarm after the state Supreme Court ruled against free speech for religious conservatives who reject the pro-trans agenda.

The November decision restores a state law, SB 219, which institutes penalties and fines for so-called misgendering. The legislation applies specifically to nursing homes and says workers who consistently call a person by their birth sex instead of their “preferred pronouns” can face up to a $1,000 fine and six months in county jail.

While a lower court nullified the law in 2021 on grounds that it violated the First Amendment right to free speech, the state’s high court said it was a “regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects speech.” 

The law, “does not restrict long-term care facilities’ staff from expressing their views about gender… other than by misgendering a resident,” wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, who added that the enforcement is for “willful, repeated, knowing acts,” thus making it exempt from First Amendment protections. 

But David Llewellyn, an attorney who argued against the law, called the decision “embarrassing,” since the only “conduct” the state is regulating is speech. 

Greg Burt, vice president for the Family Council, said the ruling proves what his group has feared since the law was first introduced in 2017. 

“Eight years ago we warned legislators that SB 219 would jail Christians for speaking biological truth,” said Burt, who directs the council’s legislative engagement. “Sadly, the Supreme Court just proved us right. Compelled speech is not tolerance. It’s tyranny.”  

Although the law only applies within long term care facilities, Burt warns it creates a precedent that could be applied more broadly. 

The law “forces caregivers – many motivated by their Christian faith – to verbally affirm gender identities that contradict their sincerely held religious convictions,” the council said in a release, which specifies that there is no religious exemption allowed. 

The council could petition the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that the law violates the First Amendment. The court takes only a small percentage of cases that are submitted each year, typically focusing on matters with broad Constitutional implications. 

The Council said it is “actively exploring all available avenues for further legal response, including a potential federal challenge in partnership with national allies such as Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council.” 

“California’s seniors deserve compassionate care,” it said. “Caregivers deserve constitutional protections. And people of faith deserve the freedom to speak without government coercion.”