It's not a bizarre exception, it's completely normal. If a math teacher tells their students that 2+2=5, it's not an assault on free speech to fire the teacher.

I like how you challenged me to listed an example thinking none existed, I list an example, and then you completely ignored that I did. You didn't even try to weasel out of it by saying that example doesn't qualify, just fully 100% ignored that I proved you wrong.

I didn't "weasel out" of anything, I didn't address a portion of your comment because I judged that another commenter had already said everything I would have said.

Why those reporting need to be intentionally biased? The bill is clearly about what the training programs can teach, not “discuss”. These two are clearly different. When a training program teaches white employees they are inherently racist, it’s totally different from a random person raises this idea from discussion.

This is a continuation of the same problem I highlighted before because it pretends that self-censorship only happens on the right. I have been through over a dozen diversity training courses in my career. Not a single one has ever said "white employees are inherently racists". This law is written against strawmen examples. Their goal isn't to stop those extreme examples. It is supposed to make companies fearful enough of a lawsuit, remember a lawsuit doesn't have to win to be costly and damaging, that they either dumb down this training or stop it entirely. The problem with censorship is not just what is actively censored. There is a much broader chilling effect that ends up censoring more topics even if they aren't explicitly banned.

Speaking of strawmen... You could have at least tried to address the point I was making.

You don't have a point. You live in an alternative reality which claims things exist in reality do not exist.