Judge Partially Blocks Florida ‘Anti-Woke’ Law

Free speech is allowed as long as it doesn't preclude someone else's free speech. Yelling 'fire' in a theater or a terroristic death threat causes a situation that removes the chance for a rebuttal. Mandatory indoctrination and firing of people who refuse to attend and or acquiesce to their idiology do as well. Protecting employees from these violations is not a violation of free speech. The judge is going to lose, eventually. If the indoctrination were for our side he would be the first to stop it from the bench. It's all raw partisan politics and we all know it.

Marky-Mark is a Zippy-appointed "judge."

I'd love it if Florida would just say... "Sorry, you don't have the jurisdiction over this, we're ignoring you."

My head is spinning from the irrational decision of this judge. Teachers don't have the 1st amendment right when they're on the clock. They're supposed to teach what their employer tells them to teach. (us) Secondly, minors can not drive, smoke, drink, vote, nor enter contracts, because they aren't yet mature enough to think and act critically. The most vulnerable times of their lives. Teachers who continue to propose the 'Woke' culture on school time or property should be fired.

It's always interesting to learn what parts of the Constitution are viable and which parts null and void. Invariably, everything conservative is null and void and anything progressive/communistic is settled law!

Just be like the Dims and ignore the ruling.

Anyone read the "decision"? The plaintiffs are two PRIVATE employers, not schools. Their issue is whether or not providing "diversity training" to employees is now legal or not. The basic issue, as private entities, is whether or not they have a First Amendment right to instruct their own employees on these matters. The court essentially says 1) They do, and 2) The state has a problem with defining impermissible lessons - and it is likely the plaintiffs' argument will prevail in the courts. Let's put the shoe on another foot. An employer has mandatory Bible-based trainings that teach that Jews are God's chosen people. Now what? Would that not fall under compelling people to believe "Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin"? This is a bad law that, if upheld, invites incredible abuse.

Teachers are not there to indoctrinate. They are there to teach a curriculum that is in keeping with the values of the parents.

Walker is a dirtbag Ballot-stuffing Hack appointed by the America-hating Obama...

To add some more context, by bringing in information from the opinion, here goes. Please note that one of the two employer plaintiffs "is a Ben & Jerry’s franchise operator with shops in Clearwater Beach and Midtown Tampa." - from the opinion. Please also note that the plaintiffs are arguing that the following language in the statute is unconstitutional, and runs counter to what they want to teach their employees (from the opinion): "The IFA prohibits employers from endorsing the concept that 'a person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex' at mandatory trainings." So, in essence, Ben & Jerry's is arguing that they have a first amendment right to indoctrinate their employees (through mandatory employee training) into adopting the cardinal progressive beliefs of white privilege, and the canard that racism is in the DNA of white people. As a licensed attorney who was required to take a Constitutional Law class in law school, I respectfully disagree that the judge in his case followed the law.

#10 - You may be right, but please explain your conclusion. An employer can compel employees to attend training on company policies. Florida is an employment-at-will state. The employee can terminate employment whenever she desires. Simply put, if one doesn't like the policy or training, there is the option to quit.

#11 - Look at the underlying proposition that your race necessarily determines your moral character. Corollaries of that proposition could be the assertions that: (1) all Native American people are alcoholics, and (2) members of Race A have lower IQs than members of Race B. Now imagine a CEO telling her/his HR Department not to ever hire a Native American, because they all have alcoholism in their DNA, and also never hire members of Race B, because their DNA makes them intellectually inferior. Employers do not have a first amendment right to teach unlawful discrimination practices to their employees. Believe it or not, I worked for 14 years as a trial judge and then for another 7 years as a presiding judge supervising other trial judges. It is the easiest thing in the world for a judge to first decide what should be the just and fair outcome of a dispute, and then backfill your opinion with the legal reasoning and law in support of that result, which can always be found with some ingenuity. I think that you would be surprised how common this approach is, which is why I would not be surprised if Florida ultimately loses this case on appeal.

You have NO Standing, Read the latest SCOTUS Opinion!

#12 - Neither employer is apparenty engaging in employment discrimination. And that's not the issue in this case. The question is whether employers have the right to transmit their workplace policies, particularly related to on-the-job behavior towards others. Undoubtedly, the answer is yes. To prevent such by this ill-defined state law is a loser, and an affront to whatever free speech is allowable. Worse, it is a law that has great utility to any oppressive authority. Funny how that works. Take the Patriot Act... We agree that it would not be a surprise if Florida ultimately loses this case on appeal. In fact, I expect it. It's just bad law.