Latest news with #ColoradoAnti-DiscriminationAct
USA Today
10-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes.
Can you be legally punished for misgendering someone? Colorado says yes. | Opinion Colorado has threatened to sic the thought police on anyone who doesn't comply by using state-approved language about transgender people. Show Caption Hide Caption Jennifer Sey talks about starting the XX-XY Athletics company Jennifer Sey talks about starting the XX-XY Athletics company USA TODAY staff You'd think that after two significant losses at the U.S. Supreme Court, Colorado would tread more carefully with its anti-discrimination laws. No such luck. A new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis in May, expands the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to make deadnaming and misgendering transgender individuals a punishable offense. California, not surprisingly, has tried something similar but on a more limited basis. The updated Colorado provisions have already attracted lawsuits on the grounds that the law violates the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment. Much like two other Colorado cases involving a cake baker and a web designer that reached the Supreme Court, this law pits free speech rights against public accommodation protections. At the heart of those cases, as well as this one, is the fact that the government – no matter how well-intentioned – cannot compel speech or chosen messages. Opinion: Democrats waste $20 million to learn why they lost men. Here's my free advice. And that's what Colorado's trans rights law would do, by claiming 'it is now a 'discriminatory practice' under Colorado law to refer to transgender-identifying individuals by their birth name (i.e., not their 'chosen name') or to use biological pronouns (i.e., not their preferred pronouns) in a place of public accommodation,' according to the first lawsuit, filed by a group of national and Colorado parental-rights organizations, including Defending Education. Forced gender ideology adherence? Here come the thought police. The law describes 'gender expression' as including someone's 'chosen name' and 'how an individual chooses to be addressed.' That is troublesome to the groups involved because a lot of the work they do centers on pushing back against gender ideology. Using biologically accurate terms is integral to their work. For instance, when discussing whether transgender students should participate in girls' sports, the debate is rooted in the biological differences between boys and girls. Now, the groups are at risk of violating the law when speaking in public spaces in Colorado. Opinion: Trump is right. Transgender athletes turn girls' track meets into a farce. 'H.B. 25-1312 was passed for the very purpose of suppressing traditional views on sex and gender and punishing those who refuse to address transgender-identifying individuals using so-called chosen names and preferred pronouns,' the lawsuit states. Those punishments could include investigations, lawsuits and fines, in addition to the possibility of 'participation in mandatory educational programs' if deemed necessary by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Thought police, anyone? 'I think it's the first time that we've seen a state actually try to cement in its own anti-discrimination canon a requirement to violate the First Amendment,' Sarah Parshall Perry, Defending Education's vice president and legal fellow, told me. She said the Supreme Court has made clear that in addition to the government forcing someone to communicate a message, forcing someone to silence themselves – essentially creating a heckler's veto – is a free speech violation. Businesses like XX-XY Athletics should be able to speak the truth The second federal lawsuit against Colorado's law was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of XX-XY Athletics, which was founded in Denver in 2024 by former Levi's executive Jennifer Sey. As the name implies, XX-XY Athletics is an athletic brand that unapologetically defends women's sports and spaces and has been outspoken about why biological men shouldn't be competing with women athletically. So using correct language is vital to the company's branding and advertising. 'Colorado continues to place itself on the wrong side of the law by forcing Coloradans to speak against their conscience,' said Hal Frampton, ADF senior counsel, in a statement. ADF is the law firm that secured wins for its Colorado clients – baker Jack Phillips and web designer Lorie Smith – in two cases that reached the Supreme Court. So it's well-positioned to intervene now. Opinion: Activists have made baker Jack Phillips' life miserable. Please leave him alone. Colorado wants to mandate 'kindness' for the LGBTQ+ community through its anti-discrimination laws. Yet, what state officials refuse to learn is that no law is above the Constitution. And in this case, requiring citizens to use language that's simply not true or accurate will never pass muster when squared with the First Amendment. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Clarifying claims that Colorado mandated use of a person's chosen name and pronouns
According to a rumor that spread online in May 2025, Colorado lawmakers passed a law that prohibited referring to individuals by a gender and/or name they no longer identify with. The rumor appeared to originate from an outdated and exaggerated interpretation of the Kelly Loving Act, a real law passed in Colorado in May 2025. The Kelly Loving Act did not make it illegal to use names or genders that individuals no longer identify with. Rather, it clarified preexisting legislation that allowed plaintiffs to use those actions as evidence in civil discrimination cases. In practice, this means choosing not to use a person's chosen name or pronouns can be used as evidence of harassment in an anti-discrimination case involving employment, housing or places of public accommodation. It does not mean that the act of misgendering or deadnaming someone is in itself illegal. In late May 2025, a rumor spread online that Colorado lawmakers prohibited refusing to use a person's chosen name and pronouns in line with their gender identity. The claims spread on X and Facebook. Some of these claims specified that the law bans "misgendering" and "deadnaming" individuals — in other words, referring to someone by a gender and/or name they no longer identify with. However, these rumors appear to be spreading an outdated and exaggerated understanding of a legitimate law passed in Colorado on May 16, 2025, to clarify legal protections for transgender people. The bill, named the Kelly Loving Act after a transgender woman who was killed in an anti-LGBTQ+ mass shooting at a Colorado gay bar, underwent major revisions before it became law. An older version of the bill sought to specifically define misgendering and deadnaming as discriminatory acts under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace, housing and in places of public accommodation such as parks, businesses and libraries. However, both terms were taken out of the legislation. Instead, the law as it stands — as of this writing — states that refusing to use a person's chosen name or respect how a person chooses to be addressed can be used as evidence in a complaint under the state's anti-discrimination act. Here's what that means. Before the Kelly Loving Act became law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act already prohibited discrimination on the basis of "gender identity" and "gender expression" due to a law passed in 2021. That bill defined gender expression as "an individual's way of reflecting and expressing the individual's gender to the outside world, typically demonstrated through appearance, dress, and behavior." It also defined gender identity as "an individual's innate sense of the individual's own gender, which may or may not correspond with the individual's sex assigned at birth." The Kelly Loving Act sought to "further clarify that not utilizing an individual's chosen name is and can be used as evidence of discrimination in a gender expression discrimination case," said state Democratic Rep. Rebekah Stewart, a sponsor of the bill. It also added more details to what "gender expression" means under the law, such as "how a person chooses to be addressed." Some claims said that Colorado made it a "crime" to misgender or deadname someone. That is simply not true, as penalties for violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act are civil, not criminal — any person who violates the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act can be fined $5,000 per plaintiff and/or other monetary damages, as of a 2025 amendment to the law. It is also worth noting that filing a complaint under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act does not automatically mean an employer or accused party may be fined. For example, with employment cases, there must be "clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in a discriminatory or unfair employment practice with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of the plaintiff," according to a 2014 Colorado Bar Association publication (see Page 4-3 under "Remedies Under CADA"). However, "good-faith efforts to comply" and "prevent discriminatory and unfair practices in the workplace" would result in no punitive damages for the defendant, per the publication. Snopes requested a full copy of the most recent version of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and will update this story if we find this language has changed. We also reached out to various law firms and civil rights groups for more information about how the Kelly Loving Act may be implemented in connection with CADA and await replies. Previous versions of the Kelly Loving Act specified inclusion of deadnaming and misgendering as acts of discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. For example, see the bill as introduced, which on Page 9 defined deadnaming as "purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual's gender identity or gender expression, refer[ring] to an individual by their birth name rather than their chosen name." Similarly, misgendering was defined on the same page as "purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual's gender identity or gender expression, refer[ring] to an individual using an honorific or pronoun that conflicts with the individual's gender identity or gender expression." The bill as introduced also said on Page 2 that it defined "deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the 'Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act', and prohibit[ed] these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation." In contrast, the bill as signed by the governor into law — available on the bill page — made no explicit mention of deadnaming or misgendering. Instead, it simply adds "chosen name" and other details to the definition of "gender expression," which, again, is already protected under the anti-discrimination act. See the relevant part of the bill, which is on Page 5, below, with the capitalized parts representing what the bill adds to the preexisting law: (3.5) "CHOSEN NAME" MEANS A NAME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS TO BE KNOWN AS IN CONNECTION TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S DISABILITY, RACE, CREED, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, GENDER EXPRESSION, MARITAL STATUS, FAMILIAL STATUS, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR ANCESTRY, SO LONG AS THE NAME DOES NOT CONTAIN OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE AND THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT REQUESTING THE NAME FOR FRIVOLOUS PURPOSES. (9) "Gender expression" means an individual's way of reflecting and expressing the individual's gender to the outside world, typically demonstrated through appearance, dress, and behavior, CHOSEN NAME, AND HOW THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES TO BE ADDRESSED. It is worth noting that repeated misgendering and deadnaming have already been used as evidence in successful anti-discrimination federal court cases. See, for example, a landmark 2015 case known as Lusardi v. Department of the Army, which found that the Army discriminated against a transgender woman, Tamara Lusardi, on the basis of sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One of the pieces of evidence used in the case was the repeated use of her birth name and male pronouns. Thus, the Colorado bill does not outright prohibit people from using a name or pronoun at odds with a person's gender expression — it simply strengthens preexisting anti-discrimination law in the state. In practice, this means that choosing not to use a person's chosen name or pronouns can be used as evidence of harassment in an anti-discrimination case involving employment, housing or places of public accommodation. It does not mean that the act of misgendering or deadnaming someone is in itself illegal. "2023 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - GOVERNMENT - STATE (§§ 24-1-101 — 24-116-102) :: PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS (§§ 24-30-101 — 24-36-306) :: Article 34 - DEPARTMENT of REGULATORY AGENCIES (§§ 24-34-101 — 24-34-1008) :: Part 6 - DISCRIMINATION in PLACES of PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (§§ 24-34-601 — 24-34-605) :: Section 24-34-601 - [Effective until 8/7/2024] Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation - Definition." Justia Law, Accessed 3 June 2025. ENGROSSED a BILL for an ACT CONCERNING LEGAL PROTECTIONS for TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS. Accessed 3 June 2025. Gallagher, Sean, et al. The Practitioner's Guide to COLORADO EMPLOYMENT LAW SECOND EDITION VOLUMES 1 & 2 the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act a Chapter in the Practitioner's Guide to Colorado Employment Law. Accessed 3 June 2025. Garcia, Lorena, et al. A BILL for an ACT 101 CONCERNING LEGAL PROTECTIONS for TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS. Accessed 3 June 2025. ---. "HOUSE BILL 25-1312." 16 May 2025, Accessed 3 June 2025. "Gender Identity Expression Anti-Discrimination | Colorado General Assembly." Accessed 3 June 2025. "Home | Colorado Civil Rights Division." Accessed 3 June 2025. "Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals | Colorado General Assembly." Colorado General Assembly, Accessed 3 June 2025. Pham, Xoai. "Groundbreaking EEOC Ruling Finds the Army Discriminated against Transgender Employee by Denying Bathroom Access, Pronouns - Transgender Law Center." Transgender Law Center, 8 Apr. 2015, Accessed 3 June 2025. Powell, Laurel. "HRC Mourns Kelly Loving, 'Loving Friend & Caring Person,' Killed in Club Q Shooting." Human Rights Campaign, 29 Nov. 2022, Accessed 3 June 2025. Soper, Matt, et al. HOUSE BILL 24-1124. Accessed 3 June 2025. Zokaie, Yara, et al. HOUSE BILL 25-1239 . 22 May 2025, Accessed 3 June 2025.
New York Post
28-05-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Activist sportswear brand sues Colorado, accuses state of censoring its message
The women's activist sportswear brand XX-XY Athletics is suing the state of Colorado over a recent state law that the company claims would interfere with its ability to market its message. The lawsuit takes aim at the state for passing a law called HB25-1312 and amending the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which defines 'gender expression' to include 'chosen name' and 'how an individual chooses to be addressed.' The laws state Coloradans have a right to access 'public accommodations and advertising' that are free of discrimination on that basis. Advertisement The company's lawsuit claims that the state's new legislation would make it illegal for the brand to carry out certain viral marketing campaign techniques it has used since launching last year. 'XX-XY Athletics, in their advertising, customer interactions, and elsewhere, to refer to transgender-identifying individuals with their given names or with biologically accurate language. XX-XY Athletics can no longer speak the truth in pursuit of its mission. XX-XY Athletics can no longer call men, men,' the lawsuit states. 'Even worse, the Act coerces the company to speak against its principles and alter the meaning of its core message. If XX-XY Athletics refuses, the company faces cease-and-desist orders, expensive investigations, hearings, and civil and criminal penalties.' Colorado Attorney General Philip J. Weiser's office has declined to comment on the lawsuit to Fox News Digital. Advertisement 4 Jennifer Sey is the founder of XX-XY Athletics. XX/XY Athletics XX-XY founder Jennifer Sey provided a statement to Fox News Digital insisting that the law would hinder her company's marketing strategies and the overall movement to oppose trans athletes in girls and women's sports. 'What is happening in Colorado is a threat to anyone who speaks the truth about biological reality and who stands up for the rights of women and girls. XX-XY Athletics communicates often and broadly on the reality that men and women are different and our mission as a brand is to empower female athletes to also speak up and protect women's sports,' Sey wrote. 'Laws like this in Colorado force Coloradans to adhere to an ideology that is in violation of actual truth. They want to silence anyone who disagrees. We are filing this lawsuit to fight for our — and every Coloradan's – right to free speech.' Advertisement 4 The state recently passed laws allowing Coloradans to have a right to access 'public accommodations and advertising' that are free of discrimination. AFP via Getty Images Sey's brand has regularly used its social media platforms to bring attention to instances of biological males competing in girls and women's sports around the country, while promoting XX-XY merchandise. The company also produces original commercials that feature its brand ambassadors, and some of those include references to trans athletes being 'men' or 'boys.' Colorado is already facing a lawsuit from one of its own school districts over the state's laws requiring schools to allow biologically male transgender athletes to compete in girls sports. School District 49 (D49) in El Paso County, Colorado, filed its lawsuit against the state after passing a localized rule that banned trans athletes from girls sports at its schools earlier in May. That lawsuit cites 'increasing tension between Title IX obligations and the state system that requires discrimination against female student-athletes,' according to documents obtained by Fox News Digital. Advertisement 4 Sey's sportswear company claimed Colorado's new law would interfere with the brand's marketing techniques. Penske Media via Getty Images 'Knowing that the approved policy would generate opposition and potentially trigger legal challenges, D49 filed a pre-enforcement action in the Colorado District of the federal court system seeking declaratory and injunctive relief,' the school district said. The lawsuit does not come in response to a specific incident of a trans athlete competing in the district. Instead, it's a response to the state's sweeping policies conflicting with the school's obligation to abide by federal law, specifically Title IX. 'Political culture is far out of balance on gender issues. Our lawsuit seeks a rational correction to excessive accommodations,' D49 Superinterdent Peter Hilts told Fox News Digital. 'Our state athletic association simultaneously advocates equity and discrimination. We asked them to resolve that discrepancy, and they declined, so we were compelled to pursue a legal ruling.' 4 Natalie Daniels was booted from her running club in the DC metro area after she shared her views about trans athletes on XX-XY's YouTube page. Courtesy of Natalie Daniels Students in the state can compete in either gender category if they inform their school in writing that their gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. CHSAA requires schools to do a confidential evaluation, and all forms of documentation are voluntary. There are also no medical or legal requirements stated. Weiser's office responded to that lawsuit in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. 'The attorney general is committed to defending Colorado's anti-discrimination laws. The attorney general's office has no further comment on this ongoing litigation,' the statement said.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Colorado potentially faces a major lawsuit regarding a new law on transgender protections and how it could violate free speech and parental rights. On Friday, Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the Kelly Loving Act, a bill that expands state anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals by allowing a person's "chosen name" to qualify as a form of "gender expression" that is protected under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Now that the bill has passed, the group Defending Education (DE) has sued the state on behalf of the Do No Harm, The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network and Protect Kids Colorado groups out of concerns that the law could violate their free speech rights. "The Act's new definition of 'gender expression' is unconstitutionally overbroad," the lawsuit provided to Fox News Digital reads. "Because it covers any treatment based on the use of a 'chosen name' or other forms of preferred 'address,' it punishes many forms of constitutionally protected speech." Colorado's 'Totalitarian' Transgenderism Bill Sparks Concerns From Parents It continued, "When speakers refer to transgender-identifying individuals using biologically accurate terms, they advance a viewpoint about a hot-button political issue: gender ideology. That kind of speech lies at the core of the First Amendment. But the Act's definition of 'gender expression' makes all such speech discriminatory and unlawful." Read On The Fox News App The lawsuit added that since CADA prohibits the "publishing of discriminative matter," the new act could prohibit and potentially penalize individuals, including parents, for publicly disapproving of changing one's name and gender. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President of Defending Education, said the law "muzzles" parents and doctors to protect the state's "preferred gender orthodoxy." "Colorado can't seem to stop losing at the Supreme Court on constitutional challenges to its anti-discrimination laws. And yet, Governor Polis has nevertheless signed another patently unconstitutional iteration of its Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act—something that can only be described as an exercise of remarkable hubris," Perry said. DE is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction on enforcing this new definition as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments for using "unconstitutionally overbroad" language and enforcing "compelled speech." "Do No Harm is proud to challenge Colorado's absurd so-called anti-discrimination act. Abridging American's constitutional right to freedom of expression in the name of radical gender ideology is wrong. We expect the court to reaffirm that the Constitution trumps progressive dogma," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. Fox News Digital reached out to the governor's office for comment. The Kelly Loving Act has come under fire by conservatives and Colorado parents since it was introduced in March. Among the protections in the original bill included a ruling that "deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services" could be considered forms of "coercive control" that could affect a parent's custody over children. After facing backlash, Colorado lawmakers eventually removed language regarding "deadnaming" and child custody, although opponents still criticized elements of the bill for broad language. Colorado Parents Unload On Liberal Lawmakers, Prompting Changes To Controversial Gender Bill Colorado has been at the center of several high-profile cases based on its anti-discrimination laws over the past few years. Most infamously, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips has been sued multiple times over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding or a gender transition. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the state, finding that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws could not force a graphic designer to create wedding websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her article source: Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kelly Loving Act aims to reinforce existing transgender rights
(COLORADO) — Colorado lawmakers have passed the Kelly Loving Act, a new bill that, if signed into law, would provide new protection for transgender individuals. HB25-1312 is named after Kelly Loving, a Club Q shooting victim. The bill would create several protections for transgender individuals, including children, and add deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. 'This bill, by far, has generated a lot of conversations,' said Senator Rod Pelton, who detailed that he had received many emails concerning HB25-1312. The bill passed the Senate on Tuesday, May 6, with a 20 to 14 vote, right before it adjourned its regular session on Wednesday, May 7. The act has sparked concerns from some communities, including parents and educators. In late April, Colorado Springs School District 11 Board of Education Secretary Jason Jorgeson sent a letter on behalf of the Coalition of Colorado Public School Administrators, Board Members, and individuals who influence educational decisions in Colorado, opposing HB25-1312 due to 'significant concerns.' According to the letter, which has over 80 signatures, the Kelly Loving Act would undermine local control, parental rights, and 'create ambiguity and compliance challenges for schools.' The letter states that the bill penalizes parents for their speech or belief about their child's gender identity. Read the full letter here: Colorado-House-Bill-1312-School-Board-Member-Letter-1Download While some senators also agreed that the bill could put a strain on families and even schools, some senators argued that the policy would help transgender individuals. 'The Kelly Loving Act seeks to increase the amount of dignity and respect that we as a state offer to trans Coloradans,' Senator Julie Gonzales said during the bill's third reading on May 6.'…We all deserve the freedom… Freedom… to make decisions about our bodies, our families, and our futures.' The letter sent by Jorgenson argues that the chosen names and dress code policy requirements in the bill undermine the district's authority to create policies that align with the needs and values of the communities. '…The prohibition on gender-specific dress codes may limit schools' ability to maintain clear and equitable standards for student conduct and attire,' the letter says. Senator Chris Kolker explained that the dress code section of the bill leaves it up to the schools to make it equal for all students. 'I know students go to school dressed a certain way when they leave the house, but when they get to school, they are dressed a different way because their parents don't know,' Kolker said. 'It's just what that child wants to wear, and they come back and change before they get back home. That's not about transgender policy, it's about what that kid's choice is. We are just leaving it to the school to enforce policy, establish policy, enforce it, and make sure it is equal amongst all kids.' The Kelly Loving Act would also determine the 'allocation of parental responsibilities' when making child custody decisions, and would consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. Another section of the bill would also prohibit a Colorado court from enforcing another state's law that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from a guardian because the guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming healthcare. 'This could strain family relationships and place schools in the challenging position of navigating sensitive custody disputes, diverting resources from our core educational mission,' the letter sent by Jorgenson said. Kolker further defended the bill, explaining that it is reinforcing previous laws, and it is not about taking parents' rights. He said that the bill 'reinforces an existing civil rights framework in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, by adding clarity and enforcement precision. It does not create new superior rights for transgender people, nor does it strip rights from anyone else. In practical terms, it says you may not deny someone housing, employment, or public services because they are transgender, that public forms must respect a person's chosen name and gender marker when they have been legally recorded.' While the Kelly Loving Act has passed both the House and the Senate, it still awaits a signature from Colorado Governor Jared Polis to be considered 'Governor Polis appreciates the work of the bill sponsors and all the advocates involved in the bill's progression, especially in removing the controversial changes to family law from the bill, and will review the final version of the bill.' To read the full bill, click the link above. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
