I was open minded about there being a legitimate basis for objection. Or even, a basis merely in terms of alignment with the recent law.
But this list is Orwellian. Except for the 4.30 concern, it all just seems like an effort to not teach what prominent voices in the field have said. Teaching what people have said isn’t the same thing as advocating for their views. You can teach a course on comparative religion without it being an endorsement of religion.
For example, why does it matter that Angela Davis is/was a communist? Do Florida schools not teach about Marxism by using readings from Marxists?
I’m not seeing how this chart explains any legitimate reason to reject the course (outside of 4.30 maybe).