New Complaint Challenges Limits to Corporate Speech Enacted by Florida's 'Stop WOKE Act'
Three Florida companies are suing in federal court for the right to discuss diversity and inclusion concepts in workplace trainings.

On Wednesday, three private companies filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that the state's "Stop WOKE Act" violates the First Amendment rights of corporations to discuss certain concepts in workplace trainings. The plaintiffs—Honeyfund, Whitespace Consulting, Collective Concepts, and diversity trainer Chevara Orrin—say that workplace trainings with a "diversity, equity, and inclusion" focus are invaluable to their businesses and that a law banning them as illegal harassment violates their First and 14th Amendment rights.
The Individual Freedom Act, more commonly known as the "Stop WOKE Act," was signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in April. It prohibits companies from making someone's employment conditional on attending any training that "espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe" certain divisive concepts about race and gender. For example, the law prevents employers from requiring trainings that say an individual's race or sex makes them "inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."
The law was hailed by DeSantis as a victory against "woke" indoctrination: "In Florida, we will not let the far-left woke agenda take over our schools and workplaces. There is no place for indoctrination or discrimination in Florida." State Senate President Wilton Simpson (R–Spring Hill), offered similar praise, claiming in an April press release that "this bill protects our individual freedoms and prevents discrimination in public schools and the workplace."
Opponents of the bill, however, say it restricts speech and unnecessarily broadens the definition of illegal harassment to infringe upon protected speech concerning race and gender. "The Governor is determined to tell Floridians what they can say, what they can learn, what they can teach, what they can believe, and who they can be," said Cathryn M. Oakley, State Legislative Director and Senior Counsel for the Human Rights Campaign. "Yet again, DeSantis is putting his ideology before the best interests of Floridians, and making a mess with slapdash, mean-spirited, impossible-to-comply-with law."
The complaint filed Wednesday takes a similar approach by arguing that "the defining feature of the American constitutional system of government is that the government cannot establish orthodoxy of thought, either by mandating certain beliefs or by prohibiting disfavored ideas. The State of Florida has blatantly violated these fundamental values of democracy, requiring swift and decisive action by this Court." The complaint says that the law "aims to forward the government's preferred narrative of history and society and to render illegal speech that challenges that narrative."
Further, the complaint notes the particular restrictions the law places on private businesses. Plaintiffs say the law "seeks to muzzle independent institutions, including businesses, that are or might become centers of dissent. And, in doing so, it attempts to direct public outrage toward disfavored minorities."
Legally, the complaint's objection to the law appears to hold water. "The law functionally picks a side in the ongoing cultural debate over the existence or prevalence of racism and then prohibits companies from taking the opposite side," says Paul Matzko, a research fellow at the Cato Institute. It essentially forces private companies to adopt—or at least not object to—the state government's views on racism and sexism. While the government has some role in setting public school curricula, it is far more constrained in determining what private companies tell their employees.
"It was not that long ago that conservatives were the ones complaining about universities having an obsession with erecting 'safe spaces' on campuses to stop microaggressions from retraumatizing delicate students." Matzko continues. "And yet, now Ron DeSantis…is trying to turn the entire corporate economy into a safe space."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Those companies can gtfo of Florida if their spreading postmodern nazism is such a priority
The Individual Freedom Act, more commonly known as the "Stop WOKE Act,"
Or from a real journalist:
The Individual Freedom Act, more commonly known as the "Individual Freedom Act".
Is it really so hard to report actual facts?
"Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (WOKE) Act"
While I agree these people deserve our ire for the "dont say gay" stuff, I think this did actually come from the Desantis team. I think they thought it was clever, but it seems cringey to me.
I would call it school and workplace racism act.
I think DeSantis is overstepping on some of these things. I'd have to read the law, which I'm not going to, but it does seem like it's a 1st Amendment violation.
Yeah, this is not the same as banning the woke stuff in public schools and state employment.
So you're pro marxist indoctrination as a requisite for employment?
I doubt they are. I am also concerned about companies making these trainings a requisite for employment, but that does not mean the bill was good law. It seems like the bill was done hastily and did not address this issue in a way that holds up to the constitution. If you want to protect employees from having to go to "trainings" that generalize racism to all white people and label as "fragile" or "white supremacist" any employees who resist, you need to have legal scholars on board who can pinpoint exactly the legal statutes that this violates. Going off half-cocked is going to result in failure of the bill to be upheld and thus defeats the purpose.
I'll take "people who have no idea what Marxism is" for $250 Alex.
I am shocked!
Seriously, if progressives are constantly pushing legal boundaries, conservatives need to do the same thing.
Seems to me that to be conservative at all, you need to have some respect for legal (and other) boundaries.
That's why left libs keep winning in the long run, and mainstream conservatives just parrot liberal ideas from fifteen years ago.
The way normiecons wage politics is designed to fail, and the right wing (conservatives, libertarians, populist, and others) need to adopt genuinely effective tactics.
*this*
Legal obstacles,*specifically* problematic parts of the Constitution like the 1st, 14th and 15th are the primary impediments blocking more complete victories over toxic progressivism that has been eroding our heritage nearly every decade since the injustice of 1865. Long past time for true culture warriors to stop treating words on paper as if they are backed by meaningful moral weight.
"BOLD, Certainly. But we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules" – the Eastman memo
My understanding is that these private companies are still allowed to have these "diversity" training seminars, they just cannot compel workers to attend through threats of firing or other forms of retaliation for non-attendance. However, the law does seem to outlaw them in educational institutions that accept state money. Maybe I misunderstand it, but that is how it reads to me.
Or that they CAN compel attendance, but not require any particular expression of agreement from the employee.
Nope. What the law does is to prohibit the FORCED participation in company "training" feeding all manner of nonsense that is offensive to many. FORCING me to not just endure but to accept and agree with this woke garbage is WRONG. If they were forcing religious doctrine on all eployees, they'd be taken down a few pegs straightway. This garbage is the same sort of thing.
Make the training/indoctrination optional, then there is no more issue. What was wrong was to FORCE anyone to endure this garbage. I know I'd refuse to sit through it. These things make employment conditional upon agreeing with certain ideaologies and valus that are antithetical to at least some.
I'd ask for the curriculum, review it, declare I cannot sit quietly and listen to this stuff without responding to it. And if I can't respond to it I won't sit through it. NOBODY will get me to sit quietly and allow them to fill y head with whatever they've got without any challenge or pushback. Or counter with truth. If they'd fire me because of this, I'd go after them with viewpoint discrimination violations.
What exactly does the law say about this? Which law or laws govern what you can force employees to attend? I wanted to know exactly where we stand.
So the issue is that they would have to have a separate training for the woke stuff as opposed to including it in their general obligatory employee training.
And make the woke one optional?
"FORCING me"
You aren't, of course. You are free to seek out employers that embrace open hostility to gay folk or whatever it is you are looking for, or to start such a business yourself.
I think they should be forced to watch close ups of anal sex. It's only right.
I understand many feel they are suffering from this, but I don't think any government policy or law can prevent such reels from running so vividly in the minds of the acutely homophobic every time the existence of gay people is acknowledged in some way in their world.
I tend to gently suggest that scaling back on related web searches in pr0n sites might be an alternative way to lessen the severity of this affliction but proponents seem fixed on Florida-style government solutions vs. adjusting personal behavior.
You a homo???
I disagree. Where in the First Amendment does it give a person or a Company the right to force me to listen to speech that I disagree with? Nothing here prevents a person or Company from stating their views. It does prevent them from making me have to listen to them as a condition of employment.
"seems cringey to me"
you think
The plaintiffs—Honeyfund, Whitespace Consulting, Collective Concepts, and diversity trainer Chevara Orrin
Follow the money.
All companies that sell woke diversity crap?
Honeyfund Fund my California Mansions
Whitespace Consulting You a bad,bad, racist cracka.
Collective Concepts Kind of says it all.
The Individual Freedom Act, more commonly known as the "Stop WOKE Act,"
More commonly known...
does that mean it's the preferred moniker by blue checks everywhere?
It means it is the selected phrase of the fascists to trample freedoms.
Well, Governor DeSantis calls it the "Stop Woke" act. The legislators renamed it the Individual Freedom act.
"The “Stop W.O.K.E.” name used by DeSantis, short for “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees,” references the acknowledgement of injustices in American society in a manner often touted by the left but vilified by the right. Formally, lawmakers called the measure the Individual Freedom bill."
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/518717-gov-desantis-signs-stop-w-o-k-e-act-as-legal-challenge-looms/
At this moment in time, defeating progressivism that is going to ruin the country for everybody, is more important than maintaining strict libertarian principles, which is always a pipe dream anyway.
Companies are forced to push dei crap to keep their esg scores up. Esg scores are maintained by Blackrock vanguard and fidelity etc who get their money from the fed.
The "private company" mantra of libritarianism is dead.
The "private company" mantra of libritarianism is dead.
And having it's skin worn around like a suit by people like Think It Through.
I tried to figure out what that even means, and whether it's an insult or a compliment, but I crapped out after about 20 minutes. Must be beyond my pay grade.
20 minutes?
And you couldn't figure it out?
It's not beyond your pay grade--it's beyond your IQ.
Oops--sorry about usin' them big words.
It means your dumb, son. Real dumb.
"It takes me 20 min. to fail to figure out if wearing someone else's skin around is a bad thing." - Think It Through
I am aware that "skin suit" is a bad thing. I am also familiar with Silence of the Lambs. I just have no idea how saying "defeating progressive is more important than maintaining libertarianism" leads to the skin suit comment. Not following.
I don't care really. It's just weird.
Breaking up Blackrock et al and distributing their assets to the public would be a more free market libertarian solution than the current status quo.
I'd say this calls for a sort of libertarian individualist principle more than ever. Institutional Capture is a common thing, and relying on institutions to correct this only opens us up to more damage down the line.
This is a social contagion, and that is won by changing individual behaviors something that requires hard work and argumentation to individuals. Government fiat has the risk of making people think it's settled and thus they go back to sleep.
And, even better, it is being won among individuals. Polling strongly indicates that Wokism is a high-intensity belief held by a small amount of people. The danger is that they have developed strongholds in major institutions both public and private.
The better way to fight back though is to empower the individuals to choose, so that they are not locked into a school that teaches these things, or that they can go to different jobs that don't have such bullshit. Maybe even open up their own companies if we could fucking simplify opening a new company more.
Not only does this fit more within a libertarian framework, and a constitutional framework, it allows them to be defeated directly. They have brought their ideas to the people and they have largely been rejected. Let's not give them a martyrology that they can fall back on to further build up their ranks.
"Wokism is a high-intensity belief held by a small amount of people"
Endless semantic games. What are you redefining "woke" to mean? It's a term used among African Americans meaning awareness of present and historical injustice and racism. Knowing about say Tulsa and Wilmington and documentation of disproportionate police violence in the present day is "woke", not knowing about these things is being asleep to it, according to the metaphor.
Obviously this definition is not suiting your purposes and you're participating in the construction of some other definition for purposes of cultural warfare and fighting back against the kind of awareness described by the term as originally used.
Wouldn't a more intellectually honest approach be to invent a new term for the thing you want to argue about, vs. these endless intellectually dishonest attempts to redefine terms and (seemingly hand in hand) rewrite history?
You're on the right track, Nick. Before you know it, you'll be shilling for cryptocurrency and joining the Mises caucus.
You know who else claimed defeating the enemy was more important than maintaining strict libertarian principles?
George Washington
Correct
Why would "maintaining strict libertarian principles" be of concern to a conservative governor of a conservative state?
Again, *this*
"BOLD, Certainly. ... but we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules" – the Eastman memo
If a company wanted to mandate a seminar for all employees saying that blacks and women are inherently inferior, and gays are all pederasts would the company being sued by black, female and gay employees be violating the company's free speech? If not, why not?
The brief for the lawsuit says they want to compel their employees to submit to hearing about a crackpot racial essentialist theory that assigns guilt for belonging to a particular racial category. That is the "free speech" they find so vital.
There is no if about it. That sort of thing is exactly what this law does prevent.
Yeah I don't see how they can really prevail on this. The government has been pretty clear that you don't have a First Amendment right to create a hostile environment at work. And that is especially true if that hostility is based on race, sex, religion, and other protected statuses.
I had to attend one of these DEI trainings, and it was extremely noxious. They said anyone who had Yom Kippur off was benefiting from privilege- the unearned advantage granted to them based on their race. You see, being Jewish is an unearned advantage.
In addition to that, DEI trainings have several statements that could be considered harassing, including:
1) Unequal outcomes happen due to systemic racism. Therefore, if you are White and/or Male and you are doing well, it wasn't because of your merit, but because of racism.
2) Combatting this racism means using our "privilege" to give advantages to people who don't have privilege. If you get the usual not-so-smart-but-ever-so-fanatic trainer, then you follow up with a question like, "As a manager, how am I to know which people need to be granted these advantages." As soon as they say "Look at skin color", you have them. They are advocating discriminating based on rase.
It took a concerted effort to get our company to pull this nonsense from our curriculum, and would not have worked if I (and other like-minded leaders) hadn't had significant leverage in the company. It is extremely difficult to do, and I can understand how getting additional help from the FL government would be very welcome.
It's not that hard to do; file a lawsuit based on hostile work environment.
Publicize the hell out of it on social media while flagging all the company feeds as racist.
as I write below, this is not easy. These grievance hucksters wrote the book on lawfare. They are very careful to avoid certain red lines.
"grievance hucksters" ... the irony
I have just the opposite take. I believe in liberty, that includes freedom of association, which includes the ability of companies to hire and fire at will, and if these employees don't like the corporate propaganda, they are free to leave.
This is just as much a corporate right as the freedom to refuse service based on skin color, religion, attire, or anything else.
This law is an affront to individual liberty and a bow to collectivism.
Then so are all "hostile work enviroment" laws.
Yes. As I said, I believe in liberty, and that includes freedom of association. I have said elsewhere, many times, that the 1964++ Civil Rights Acts continued the Democrats' track record: pro-slavery, mandated desegregation, mandated integration (aka affirmative action), all working against individual liberty.
If an employee doesn't like his employer's policies, quit. If a customer doesn't like a business's policies, don't do business with them. The more anyone restricts their options with unpopular policies like not hiring or serving blacks, pushing wokism training, puritanical dress codes, or anything else, the more the market punishes them. America today would be a far less bigoted and angry society if government would just butt out instead of trying to dictate one policy for all.
Well, then until those are repealed, then there must be equal treatment under law.
Bingo
I hear what you're saying, but under the current law, I can't make a hostile work environment for the gays, but I can for light-skinned hispanics. We're either going to have protections for people from being persecuted for superficial characteristics or we're not.
"If an employee doesn't like his employer's policies, quit. If a customer doesn't like a business's policies, don't do business with them."
If this were all free market, I would agree with you. But these religious fanatics are using existing law to get their foot in the door, reduce opposition, and spread the culture throughout companies.
The first people at my company who complained about DEI training were hauled in front of HR for creating a hostile environment. The people pushing this agenda know very well the trigger words to get a lawsuit-avoiding HR team to stifle discussion. I had an employee who was hauled into these meetings for nothing more than refusing to accept the notion that people other than Whites can be racist. "Others" felt that he was unfairly attacking them, which HR would later agree, he was not.
The government has already tipped the scales in the favor of people pushing this crypto-marxist pseudo-religion. Because it already forces the company to be extra careful, and accommodating to the complaints of protected statuses. If this weren't the case, I would have zero problem with letting companies self organize as they see fit. Unfortunately here we are, and limiting the harm caused by CRA means some additional law.
But then who provides the enforcement of your right to assembly? There's the rub, right? As soon as you call the cops to throw the wrong-colored guy out of your store, you are weaponizing the State against your unfavored race: that's institutional racism. If you're willing to brandish the shotgun to keep him off your property, and accept the consequences if that shotgun goes off, then you can absolutely enjoy your absolute right to assembly. In principal, I agree with you 100%; but in practice, this could get messy right quick.
"the Democrats' track record: pro-slavery, mandated desegregation..."
lolz
Sure, in concept, but we don't live in that world. Anti-discrimination laws mean that there is no freedom of association.
Man I'll sure have so much liberty in our corporate hellscape where money power and government power are fused and if I express wrong think I'll never be able to work for a major company again.
Such a useful freedom to leave!
Yeah it seems to me these things are already illegal under existing anti harassment and racial/gender discrimination law. Florida just decided to make it more specific. Private companies have never been exempt from these laws no matter the effect on their profit margins.
Indeed, makes you wonder how these seminars still exist, if they really are focused on the anti-white and anti-heterosexual content culture warriors rail in terror about (real head scratcher).
"If a company wanted to mandate a seminar for all employees saying that blacks and women are inherently inferior"
Do you seriously think, as a grown ass adult, that companies are sponsoring seminars claiming white straight men are inherently inferior?
Obviously your hypothetical collides with equal protection, though of course conservatives have historically opposed equal protection.
"a crackpot racial essentialist theory that assigns guilt for belonging to a particular racial category"
Obvious grievance signaling bullshit, sorry.
Actual "seminar" content tends to focus on issues like unconscious bias (empirically testable, if you like) and privilege – both easily documented concepts that have nothing to do with wHiTE mEN ArE bAD.
Wonder how many generations it will take for a majority of white conservative men to get fully comfortable with what Texas' declaration of secession derides as the Union's "debasing doctrine of the equality of all men."
But these ideas of privilege and bias literally are "white men are bad."
Good lord – they literally are not. Look up "literally" in the dictionary.
I think you mean, "emotionally they feel the same. The subtext is there. You just have to hear it." You don't actually.
For example, bias is empirically not limited to white men. Simple studies for years have shown if you change the name (gender) or photo associated with an essay you can change how reviewers rate the essay. These effects are not limited to white men.
Nor is "bias" a synonym for "bad". Another dictionary term worth looking up. There are *practical* reasons why in the business world we try to combat bias.
These relate to the structural reasons why social conservatism conflicts with both science (empiricism) and increasingly today with practices that emerge in the market. Both are grounded in more objective concepts – experiments, business success. Social conservatism elevates cultural practices and identity above such measures.
I am curious if diversity trainer Chevara Orrin has ever been sued for creating a hostile work environment.
Don't see a record of it, but you should give it a go.
MLK was accused multiple times and sometimes successfully jailed for inciting violence by talking about race in ways that angered whites, so there is some precedent. Times have changed a bit, but see how far you get.
Secular religions are still religions. Requiring wokism as a condition of employment is like requiring one be baptized.
Which, in Libertopia would be fine with me. But here in the US, where the government forces us to not discriminate based on Religion or Race (et al), Wokeism should be treated accordingly.
But even moreso, this would be not only forcing people to join your religion, but it is a religion that teaches the evil of gays or some other general class.
I don't disagree with the religious-like aspects of Wokism. I just worry about further extending the areas in which the government is allowed to function.
"It's not ok to oppose totalitarian leftism."
Is that supposed to be your summary of what I said?
Yep.
Going out of your way to give leftist totalitarians the benefit of the doubt and nitpick opposition to it is your consistent m.o.
Here, you conveniently ignore the Civil Rights Act so you can pretend Florida's law "extends" government domain instead of simply enforcing equal application of the law.
You're concern trolling.
Okay, wanted to confirm.
I disagree. There's no ignoring or referencing the CRA because I'm only speaking to the question of the prudence of these laws. I'm not a fan of much of the CRA and I think we've seen that play out in many of the ways opponents at the time predicted (quotas, affirmative action being prime examples). So, let's assume that this law does pass constitutional muster and is enacted. (I say this, because I truly have no idea what the constitutional outcome would be if this law is taken up.)
So, here are the concerns I have. One, this is a new law, that expands what is and is not allowed by institutional actors. Every time you create new law, you create precedent for even further laws in that area. We see this all the time, and is such a basic libertarian tenet that I think it needs no further comment. We should always question whether, even if the government is able to a pass a law, should they.
Second, let's assume that this law should be passed on the grounds that it is such an important case that the government cannot remain neutral. I have concerns about whether it will actually have the outcome people are hoping for. So, first I fear we open up the Woke ranks to claims of government persecution of their beliefs. Because the Woke have many of the qualities of a cult, I fear this will tend to force them together into even more hardened and radical configurations. It will create a martyrology that they can claim to as they develop their religion.
This also creates new rules to be enforced. We've seen that institutional capture almost always goes one way. In fact, that's a main claim of people saying that government force is necessary here: the woke have taken over our institutions and corrupted them. I don't believe these laws will stop that from happening in the future, so we've extended a new authority to government over private companies that have strong odds at some point in the future being overtaken by leftists. This is the Deep State effect which I am very sympathetic to.
So, even without any claims to particular libertarian beliefs, just my own truly held concerns about the cult of Wokism, I think we have a strong case that this is not the correct way of combating.
I'll add an addendum to this: We've consistently seen Wokism refuted in the public at large. Disney is taking tremendous hits for its actions, and other Woke actors are similarly having to pull back because people don't like it. We're even getting new grassroots advocates for things like school choice to avoid students being stuck with only indoctrination centers. To win the fight though, we must not overextend and create unforced errors that do not actually convince people.
I see no new rules to be enforced, just a balancing of existing rules.
What specific "new" rules do you fear, and how so?
What new authority is being created?
Describe the scenario you envision, because it looks like your just reaching for vague misgivings that don't have any real mechanism.
Is it the correct way of combating postmodern nazism? I think it's part of it.
Above all else, avoiding conflict is what has allowed leftists to gain control of all our institutions (public and private).
Wherever woke is found it must be ruthlessly defeated.
"here in the US, where the government forces us to not discriminate based on Religion or Race"
Where the Constitution and the nation's libertarian principles restrict you from...
To be fair, if you are too far outside the culture of the company, you dont want to work there.
Try wearing a MAGA hat to work at Facebook. They may not necessarily fire you but you wont last long.
Try wearing Adidas gear to the Nike offices. They can't fire you for that. But how long will you last?
I would keep my politics to myself and not go out of my way to look like an ass. But that's just me.
That's a good philosophy. However, some of us have worked in environments where Democrats or Republicans are in a super-majority and have the sympathy of management. Employees on the "right" side are free to vocally express their views while anyone on the "wrong" side risks ostracism for even hinting they are against the "right" side. Management makes open statements supporting one side or another. It's not tolerable.
I worked for a long time at my company- a company that prided itself on grass roots culture. In fact, much of the culture was unique to the regions you were in. The LA Offices were different from the SV offices, which were different from rural New York.
DEI is designed to force a new cultural conformity on the company by a few fanatics. Not just for the people in Silicon Valley, but for people everywhere at the company. The pluralism of our company, where everyone felt capable of speaking their mind very quickly became a "You can't say that here" culture.
So, I don't see anything wrong with people inside a company striving to avoid a new culture being forced on them. And to the extent that the Government is making it easier for those SJWs to push this religion on the company through existing anti-discrimination laws, I am glad to see a government stepping in to balance those scales. *shrug*
"Try wearing Adidas gear to the Nike offices. They can't fire you for that. But how long will you last?"
Nike absolutely could. What is the defined protected class in employment law of which one is a member by "wearing Adidas gear"?
(BTW, political beliefs or activities aren't protected under federal employment law, though they are under the laws of a few states, including California. So in most of the U.S. an employer can fire an employee for the employee's political beliefs.)
Word!
But they're not "requiring wokism" (sic). They're just requiring you to attend a class. As an employee you can believe whatever you want before and after the class.
Amazing
would it be OK to have a "OK black folks, lets sit you down and tell you whats wrong with your culture and how you are hurting other cultures"
That black employee thats pissed about it can just go pound sand? Its cool for them to appeal to the CRA but other races have to tolerate it and fuck them for their 'fragility'?
Yes, that is what they actually say after a couple of drinks.
Nah, it’s all utter bullshit and must come to a stop. Marxism should be stamped out.
I received some bs email from management about Save the World Day and turning off lights when not in use. I wrote back and told them to remove me from their religious distribution list. Manager wrote back and said it was not about religion. I replied that it most certainly was. I never heard from them again.
Legally, the complaint's objection to the law appears to hold water. No it doesn't. If Congress can pass a Civil Rights Act to mandate a color blind society, then so can the States - Florida's Civil Rights Act or "Individual Freedom Act' is no different in intent and scope than the Federal version as it, too, seeks to enforce a color blind society in Florida. Any company is free to offer their Marxist drivel to their employees, they just can't make it a CONDITION of employment. It's not anti woke - it's pro Dr. Martin Luther King who pushed Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"Any company is free to offer their Marxist drivel to their employees, they just can't make it a CONDITION of employment."
I'm not certain that they are even free to do this. An employee only needs to say that this language is unwelcome, and offensive and if it continues to take place in the office, they have a legitimate claim of harassment and hostile workplace.
It depends on the employee. I'm a white male heterosexual Christian veteran. If I say it, I'm out the door.
Thank you for your service.
Pro MLK is anti woke
This is nothing more than companies wanting to violate the civil rights act when the arrow is pointed the correct way, and unhappy when they get called on it.
It is 100% the same issue the CRT school bills dealt with. Sticking to a simple "dont be racist to ANYONE" to them is a horrible violation of them being able to club whitey over the head with DEI training, and they know it
"It is 100% the same issue the CRT school bills dealt with. "
Well this *is* the CRT bill. There are two bills. One specific to schools was banning Transgendered queer theory indoctrination in the schools. This one bans CRT in both schools and workplaces.
Protecting employees from compelled participation in racist indoctrination is a bad thing?
If you want to be hyper libertarian about it? Yeah it is. People ought to be allowed to associate with whomever they want, even if that means being racist fucks.
But, I would definitely agree that this law is no worse than existing Civil Rights legislation that bans discrimination in the work place.
"But, I would definitely agree that this law is no worse than existing Civil Rights legislation that bans discrimination in the work place."
Or myriad other workplace protections. I don't see it as of-a-piece with the CRA, mainly because it is moving in the opposite direction - effectively telling employers to avoid focusing on skin color or other inherited characteristics.
Plus I tend to approve of fighting fire with fire. Turn the weapons of progressives back on them.
If we refuse to use their weapons against them why would they ever agree to stop using those weapons? Even if you think the top priority is eliminating these weapons the best strategy is to use them against the left.
We need to make them hurt.
"For example, the law prevents employers from requiring trainings that say an individual's race or sex makes them "inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.""
Sounds good. Keep up the good work.
Emma Camp : "Am I the baddie?"
That references a classic ‘Mitchell and Webb’ sketch.
None of these laws are necessary, so they are not the way to go. Everyone has a civil right to not be discriminated against in employment and education. This was codified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and most states have similar legislation. Any business deploying CRT principles in their orientation or HR policies is violating their employee's civil rights. DeSantis should direct his attorney general to investigate any such claims, which would result in both massive fines and potentially jail time for those creating the discriminatory policies.
This is both far more potent and avoids the left's attack that these new laws are illegitimate. I definitely want the left arguing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is wrong.
Then every company that has a DEI department is violating the civil rights act and should be fined.
The diversity trading at many if not most large employers in the US literally tells employees that their race make them racist, and employees should judge people based on their race.
Then every company that has a DEI department is violating the civil rights act and should be fined.
Not definitionally, there are some actions they can take which would not be discriminatory. For the most part these would be limited to ensuring discrimination against minorities isn't happening. But since the explosion in CRT DEI leaders rushed to adopt the most extreme elements so it's likely as a practical matter than they all currently violate the CRA, certainly the high profile programs qualify. This would likely make DEI group useless since the desire to not discriminate against minorities is so widespread DEI staff have to pretend non-discrimination is discrimination in order to find some to complain about.
This is hardly surprising since hiring DEI staff is virtue signaling rather than problem solving.
Why would you need a separate department for minorities? That's just stupid and offensive on so many levels.
Not a separate dept for minorities. DEI means Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, typically a Human Resources function not a department.
"these would be limited to ensuring discrimination against minorities isn't happening"
Lol. In other words legalized hunting of whitey!
Are you being intentionally slow on this...
I would tend to agree, however because this is a tricky area, where people have tried their best to get past the legal hurdles. It is not as straightforward and easy as you think.
First of all, the actual materials of this training are well thought out and vetted by lawyers who are purposefully trying to avoid CRA lawsuits. As I note above, the actual trainers are often zealots who stray from the materials into outright discriminatory or hostile speech, but that is very difficult to take action on.
HR Departments are trained to respond to people who understand how to use the CRA. My first attempt to get this training removed included me sending a note to HR saying that this training was unwelcome and offensive- that language specifically. They knew what I was doing and immediately moved to make an accommodation for me, by exempting me from the classes. They did this repeatedly. When others complained about unwanted and offensive speech from Employee Resource Groups calling to "Dismantle systems of white supremacy" in the company, they would do similar "check the box" attempts to prove that they were avoiding hostile workplaces.
In the end, it was not fear of CRA lawsuits that got my company to drop the training, but rather the fact that a significant percentage of the leadership core (VPs, Senior Directors, etc) rebelled and said that it was distracting their staff.
That is how it should be: the marketplace in action.
Except that non-market forces are making it far easier for this culture to be pushed through on the majority at the hands of a few. If the CRA didn't already make it difficult for line employees to object to this nonsense, then I'd agree. But that isn't what is happening.
people have tried their best to get past the legal hurdles.
The biggest problem is people who object have no support. That's why we need allies in the AG's office to develop a program. Then we need to normalize that anyone attending these orientations / conferences / seminars videos or audio tapes the sessions so their specific comments can be judged.
If Florida can create this at the state level other red states will follow. Then the next time Reps control the administration there will be a framework for the Feds to follow.
How is this different from, say, those stupid sexual harassment videos I have to watch every year along with ethics videos and all that crap?
Those are informing you of behaviors that violate actual laws and serve to idemnify the company against handsy employees.
Does the training insist men are scum?
Almost. They dance up to that line but don't cross it.
Most of the harassment training videos at my work take extra pains to emphasize that harassment can come from anybody. They do things like have a woman boss being the harasser and such. But even so, in this case, it is a stereotype because men HAVE traditionally been the source of most workplace harassment. *shrug*
The lesson is that any flirtation or friendliness could be interpreted as an unwanted sexual advance, so let's all act like robots.
That's only because men have traditionally been in more leading positions. If you normalize for that, women appear to be worse harassers than men.
Also the barrier for specific trivial behaviour to be considered harassment is much lower for men, and depends on how good looking the guy is.
When a look or comment can be regarded as harassment, of course men will be the source of most problems. Men don't give a shit and for women its a source of their power.
Seems that the law only prevents companies from requiring attendance as a condition of employment, not that the company is forbidden to have them.
So what? How's it the business of the State of Florida to dictate what is required by a business of employees as long as it doesn't violate other laws. Pissing off the governor is not a valid reason.
And where did those other laws come from? They were enacted by another legislature and governor at some point.
I don't think this law is necessarily a good thing, but it's not so different from the many other workplace anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws.
Well, thanks to progressive legislation, creating a hostile work environment is illegal. And calling your employees "racist" simply on account of their skin color sounds pretty hostile to me.
They’re protecting employees from being subjected to indoctrination from idiot Marxists, such as yourself.
Let's go with "People who don't understand what Marxism is" for $500 this time Alex
So not being able to force people to listen to my ideas as a condition of employement is violating my 1st amendment right to free speech? Do you a minute to hear about my friend Jesus?
'Stop WOKE Act'
Sooner or later, a politician is going to completely cast off the veil, and produce a tax bill called the FUCK YOU Act.
DMV will step in.
>>an individual's race
will never be a definable trait.
It's Florida, so I'm guessing their race is NASCAR.
The street was deserted late Friday night
We were buggin' each other while we sat out the light
We both popped the clutch when the light turned green
You should of heard the whine from my screamin' machine
Just wanted to say I saw your Simpsons reset (Clown College = Princeton) in the comments from a few days ago. Nice work.
lol gracias.
It takes a special kind of stupid to think not making people attend your talks is a violation of your free speech rights.
You might be able to make a case that it's a violation of the free speech rights of the companies hiring these louses (although I'm curious what Reason would have to say about a company that made employees sit through a lecture on Christian apologetics). But, of their rights? No, that's just supid.
Not the only law where DeSantis has violated 1st amendment rights and bullied businesses and local governments into acting as the state of Florida says they must. If you hate freedom, he's your guy.
The level of delusion it requires to consider deSantis the enemy of freedom compared to any blue state blue governor is amazing.
Joe is a very deluded idiot.
So, I take it that you fully agree that "hostile work environment" laws are an unacceptable breach of the First Amendment and an infringement on freedom?
It's going to be funny when the woke progressives get the literal opposite world they wanted and all discrimination becomes legal again. they'd rather have that than no discrimination .
That is the world they want.
they want a repeal of the CRA for revenge
I don't see the problem. My employer tells me what to think and the government tells my employer what to tell me to think. There's good people on both sides.
Was that OK, boss?
Nein!
To the camps!
And what is the Supreme Court doing about mass shootings against gay people?
Oh what, you hadn't heard about it either?
Neither did I.
To be fair, I really don't pay attention to Europe.
Europe reports on our mass shootings...
Pretty sure the kid in Norway got wall to wall coverage here, with tons of think pieces about "white supremacy" and demands for gun control in American media.
Though I do admit the body count was much higher in that one.
Yes, that's because European elites have had an inferiority complex ever since 1776.
Americans think that Europe is a quaint place to vacation, but otherwise largely irrelevant.
>>I really don't pay attention to Europe.
their song Carrie began the downfall of the 1980s.
Harmful Disinformation. Everyone knows mass shootings never happen in Europe.
Rooting out the scourge of Islamophobia is more important than things that actually happen.
Rooting out the scourge of Islam
ophobiais more importantthan things that actually happen.Who are these people trying to kid? They love attacks on innocent people: it gives them an excuse to grab more power.
Don't worry, Christian terrorists will one day be seen as a mere nuisance. First we have to get their hands off all the levers of power.
I think this is one of the few instances where outcomes can be so severe that the ends might justify the means. I can't comment on legality, but take mandatory 'you are not allowed to disagree' DEI trainings to their extreme and you have corporate induced balkanization. People will live and work in legal environments where they are permitted to earn a living. This type of political segregation is extremely dangerous and the perfect fertilizer for civil war/foreign invasion.
You spelled DIE wrong - - - - - -
I work for a large company, not going along with DEI affects bonus and promotion. You aren't even allowed to criticise among colleagues. Despite that , people still take the piss out of it.
Xerox was the "diversity" company in the 90s...complete balkanization. Tribes fought each other as the ship sank. Xerox doesn't talk much about that stuff anymore...the good employees left as they didn't want to be treated based on their race or gender or sexual preference. These firms pushing radical DIE will die just like Xerox...the market is brutal and doesn't care if you are woke
So build your own company. Stop using the government to force private entities to operate in a certain way.
Well. So much for the culture of free speech.
Yep, it’s being pulled from the clutches of your fellow travelers.
If someone from CATO advocates something, libertarians should take the opposite view. CATO is a joke these days.
I see nothing wrong with companies pushing cultural Marxist and pure Marxist propaganda that treats some employees different than others and categorizes individuals in "victim" and "oppressor" groups and forces "oppressors" to admit their "original sin." DIE is just Marxist bs and everyone knows it. When you don't get the social outcomes, you want you have to have a scapegoat..hence DIE. Those firms should get the F out of Florida..go to Cali or New York and stay there...commies
I would like to congratulate SCOTUS and the Congress for creating this mess.
The lawsuit has merit, except for the last 55+ years of federal law and SCOTUS' obscene rulings.
This law in Florida falls into the exact same category as every "Anti-discrimination law and Judicial abuse of power by SCOTUS since the So-called-Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It with ZERO constitutional authority, AND, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment decides whom companies, must hire, do business with, what they can say and how they act, regardless of the lack of legitimate interest by the State in the internal workings of PRIVATE business.
Until and unless ALL the restrictions of who must be hired, with whom business is done, what an employer may say is removed this law is well within the guidelines created (out of whole cloth) by SCOTUS.
The level of delusion it requires to consider DeSantis the enemy of freedom compared to any blue state blue governor is amazing.
freedom
Corporations are not people no matter what the screwed up government says. No one should be forced to suffer political indoctrination for earn a living. If Reason wants to complain about abuses of free speech how about the laws and consequences of using personal pronouns? Being forced to use any pronoun is an abuse of free speech. If I see a 6'3' person weighting 260 lbs with a heavy beard, wearing a dress I still know that person is a man. I will use the pronouns he and him for that person. That is my right under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I can actually say all kinds of offensive speech under the 1st amendment much worse than the preferred personal pronoun. The 1st amendment wasn't written to protect what is popular at the moment. It was written so people could speak out against things like "group think".
Corporations aren't people, but it is traditionally the libertarian position to let employers set the conditions of employment without the government forcing rules upon them.
The company I contracted to for the last 17 years came up with a Diversity course that I was required to take. I refused. They required it. I refused. On and on. I finally agreed that I would take the 15 minute online course, but would charge them for 8 hours. (I was "hourly". I billed $150/hr for my time.) They agreed. I watched it, logged off for the day and on Friday submitted my weeks' invoice, including the 8 hours of "Diversity Training". They paid it. It is good to be needed.
CB
How the turns table. DeSantis thought he was going to ride a fucking meme to the White House. Then the conservatard Supreme Court goes and reminds everyone that Republicans actually are trying to take away everyone's rights (for Jesus).
How embarrassing this anti-woke horseshit was.
Long time to 2024....the woke crowd with hang themselves...and we will see how degenerate they really are.
Much as I hate to disagree with a Cato scholar, this is not about "safe spaces" from hearing about insane leftist concepts, but from not allowing corporations to require groupthink training of said concepts as a condition of employment.
Imagine the response if a corporation said that everyone hired must attend Christian proselytizing meetings...
"not allowing corporations"
I can barely move anymore without hitting my elbow on a libertarian who wants to use the government to force corporations to behave in a state-approved way.
It's DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, EQUITY.
DIE
Die.
Stop using DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION.
That's DEI
Which means 'God'.
And that tells you all you need to know.
+++
the government cannot establish orthodoxy of thought, either by mandating certain beliefs or by prohibiting disfavored ideas
I agree. But the law only prohibits employers from firing employees who choose to not attend what is a political indoctrination session, with politics that management prefers. When businesses depend on one government party for their income, it becomes an extension of the government, that's forcing you want to think and verbally support (even if you disagree with it), if you want a job. It's another government infringement on our freedom, and a socialist takeover of business education.