Florida’s Individual Freedom Act barred employers from requiring training that endorsed eight specified views about race, sex, or national origin, while allowing sessions that rejected them or presented them “objectively.” Honeyfund, another employer, and a diversity-training consultant challenged the workplace provision; the district court preliminarily enjoined it, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held the Act regulated speech, not merely meeting conduct, because officials had to examine a session’s message to determine whether it was prohibited, and Florida conceded the law discriminated by viewpoint. Strict scrutiny applied, but Florida’s interest in preventing discriminatory speech did not justify a viewpoint-based ban: the Act targeted ideas rather than discriminatory treatment, reached willing as well as unwilling listeners, and was not narrowly tailored. Title VII did not alter the analysis because it regulates discriminatory employment conduct rather than speech content; the court did not reach the separate vagueness and overbreadth claims. The plaintiffs showed likely First Amendment success and irreparable injury, and the injunction served the public interest; the court affirmed the preliminary injunction against Fla. Stat. § 760.10(8).