Colorado Hit With Another Lawsuit Over Controversial Anti-Discrimination Law
Two high-profile cases of Christians targeted under the law—Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative—resulted in losses for Colorado at the U.S. Supreme Court.
An independent Christian bookstore in Colorado sued the state last week over new transgender provisions in the state’s anti-discrimination law. The bookstore objects to a recent amendment compelling public accommodations to refer to transgender individuals by their preferred pronouns and chosen name, even when those preferences conflict with an individual’s sex.
The complaint challenges the law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as a violation of the Free Speech, Press, Assembly, and Free Exercise Clauses, as well as the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
The challenged law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), as amended in 2025, “defines the term ‘chosen name’ . . . as a name that an individual requests to be known as in connection to the individual’s . . . gender identity [or] gender expression.” Failure to comply can result in penalties of up to $3,500 or imprisonment for 120 days.
The suit names as defendants the Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), and the Colorado Attorney General. The CCRC “is a seven-member, bipartisan board,” consisting of three Democrats and four “unaffiliated” members, tasked to “[c]onduct hearings regarding illegal discriminatory practices.”
CCRC Rule 81.6(A)(4) classifies “[d]eliberately misusing an individual’s . . . gender-related pronouns” as “[u]nlawful harassment.”
The plaintiff, Born Again Used Books, represents itself as “providing reliable Christian resources for the Colorado Springs community” with a goal of “offer[ing] materials that are inexpensive and that reflect the truth about Jesus and his heart for the world.”
The bookstore espouses “the belief that God created everyone in His image, male or female, worthy of dignity and respect,” according to the complaint. Referring to a transgender patron by a biologically inaccurate name or pronouns would, in the bookstore’s view, amount to a denial of this belief.
The bookstore “serves everyone regardless of gender identity,” according to the complaint, but its employees are instructed not to speak in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s Christian beliefs. To clarify its policy, the bookstore wishes to publish it in writing and disseminate it to its employees:
As a Christian bookstore, Born Again Used Books seeks to follow Christian beliefs when interacting with customers and the public. It is the official policy of Born Again Used Books that owners and employees use language that aligns with the biological sex of the person being referenced, whether the individual is a customer or any member of the public.
“[W]e cannot participate with someone in something the Bible says is false,” reads a draft statement on “Love and Biological Accuracy” from the bookstore.
“[T]ruth is inherent in love,” the draft statement continues. “In the world of ideas, truth has been relegated to a relativistic sidekick. The Bible doesn’t see it that way. If we are to truly love someone, we must share the truth with them.”
“Born Again Used Books serves everyone, but our clients can’t say anything that goes against their deeply held beliefs,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal counsel Mercer Martin told Legal Insurrection. “This means that if a customer identifying as the opposite sex, which has occurred, walked in and asked to use inaccurate pronouns, the employees would politely and charitably decline and instead use a form of address that does not contradict the customer’s biological sex, such as the person’s first or last name.”
The ADF, which represents the bookstore, has twice challenged CADA on behalf of Colorado Christians and prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court. In these cases, neither business refused to serve LGBT customers but would not create custom designs for events inconsistent with the owner’s Christian beliefs (e.g., same-sex weddings).
ADF represented a Colorado Christian baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple and was subjected to enforcement under CADA.
The Court found for Phillips on religious freedom grounds, ruling that animus toward religion in the state anti-discrimination proceedings tainted those proceedings and violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as Legal Insurrection reported.
During a public hearing, the then-commissioner stated, “religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination,” including slavery and the Holocaust.
The Court, finding animus toward religion in the proceedings, did not assess the constitutionality of CADA as applied to Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing to design the custom wedding cake.
ADF later represented a Colorado Christian web designer in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The owner of 303 Creative, Lorie Smith, wanted to post a policy, in violation of CADA, stating she would refuse to create custom wedding websites for same-sex weddings.
The Court held that CADA, as applied to compel custom designs contrary to Smith’s views, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, as Legal Insurrection reported.
Born Again Used Books’ complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing enforcement of CADA against Born Again Used Books and “third-party speakers similarly situated to Born Again Used Books.”
The press contact for the CCRD and CCRC declined to comment on the pending litigation. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office did not respond to an email from Legal Insurrection.
The complaint:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So going to another vendor would have been too much trouble? Right.
As usual, the powers-that-be want to control individuals in spite of the individual’s God given freedom to determine their own actions.
.
What vendor? Who are you referring to as having “too much trouble”? This is not the bakery case. There is no complaining customer, so there is no one who could be asked to go to another vendor.
The plaintiffs, both in 303 Creative and here, are the businesses, which seek the right to post a policy that the law prohibits. In 303 Creative the owner wished to post the policy on her web site to potential customers; in this case the book store wishes to circulate the policy to its employees.
The law says they can’t have such a policy, because it constitutes harassment; they say its not harassment because their intent is not to hurt anyone’s feelings but only to avoid violating their own consciences.
Actually, it sounds like hurting someone’s feelings is beside the point. They want to speak the truth.
But why do they want that? The law assumes they want it because it will hurt the target’s feelings, which is harassment that the state can ban; they say they want it because their own consciences demand it, and the fact that it hurts the person’s feelings is merely a regrettable but inevitable consequence.
Either way, there’s no customer who can be expected to simply go somewhere else.
This is a Christian bookstore you’re talking about so there actually may not be an alternative. If a tranny wants Christian books, odds are they’ll need to go to a Christian bookstore. So whether they go to BAUB or another Christian bookstore the issue remains – are owners and staff required to lie, and can they stock Christian content if it offends trannies?
Well there still is Amazon, and most bookshops also sell online.
Communism 101. Keep at it until they crack. ‘Keep pushing, if you meet steel stop. If mush, keep pushing’. V. Lenin.
Your fag decal won’t get you into heaven anymore….
Government cannot compel my speech.. John may wish for me to address him as Mary, but government cannot require me to do so. I need not invoke my religious beliefs as a defense, I merely say that I do not wish to comply. One might think me rude to John but that’s not the point — John and I can work that out.
Government cannot compel my speech.
One would think that it is evidently compelled speech.
Why do they keep trying?
Exactly. The reign of the wokiestas must end, these NPCs can’t be allowed to force the rest of us to read from their delusional script to shelter them from reality. We don’t have to be unwilling participants in their fantasy cosplay.
Government can prohibit verbal harassment, and that is the excuse this law uses for its provision. It only prohibits deliberately using names and pronouns that the business knows will cause the person distress; it assumes that since the business knows this, and deliberately uses them anyway, its only possible purpose is to cause that distress, and that is harassment.
The plaintiffs in 303 Creative and in this case argue that their motive in using such language is not to cause the person distress, but to avoid violating their own conscience by denying that which their deeply held belief tells them is true. They’re not arguing from the free exercise of religion but from the freedom of speech; their religious belief is only relevant because it gives them the non-harassing motive for the offensive speech.
Thank you Milhouse. It’s interesting to see on what the State bases its position. I wonder though about the idea that using language which is normally (heh!) NOT considered in the culture to be offensive can be selectively chosen to be considered -legally- offensive to the point of permitting punishment by the State.
May I choose to create my own religion (or medical condition, or sincere belief which dictates that I only be referred to as Zaphod Beeblebrox Jr. and expect the State to enforce that demand?
If someone knows that you hate being called anything but “Zaphod”, and they repeatedly and deliberately call you “Hodge” just because they know it will upset you, that is harassment, which the state can ban.
The issue here is that the law assumes I couldn’t possibly have any other motive for repeatedly and deliberately calling you that. The plaintiffs are arguing that they have a different motive, and therefore are not actually violating the law.
The problem is the law mandates the use of pronouns, and possibly names, that it knows will cause distress i.e. the state is mandating people lie. To those that believe honesty is always required, or mandatory in everything bar “no Mr Gestapo Agent I don’t have any Jews hidden inside” type cases, the Colorado law is flagrantly unconstitutional.
I honestly don’t see how it can survive a challenge.
Again, the law’s premise is that the only possible reason anyone would deliberately call someone by names or pronouns that they know hurt the person’s feelings is to harass them. There is no other possible motive. The hidden assumption is that no one sincerely believes that trans people are not what they say they are. No one sincerely believes that a person’s birth gender is permanent and fixed and unchangeable. Those who make this claim are dissembling, because it’s so obviously untrue. And those who on top of that claim that it hurts them to tell a little white lie in order to spare someone’s feelings! Well, that’s just unpossible. They’re just making up an excuse so they can harass these poor trans people, out of their hateful spiteful poisonous souls. So we must make a law to compel them to be nice.
In a way this reminds me of those who are so convinced that restricting people’s RKBA will — must — save thousands of lives, and that everyone knows and believes this, so those who oppose such “common sense” regulations must have some nefarious motive; and since it’s unthinkable that they actually want more killings, the only alternative left is that they’re doing it for money, that they’re being paid off by those evil people at the NRA, who make money from gun sales. There are millions of people who are absolutely convinced that this ridiculous narrative is not just true, but obviously true. And I think a similar thing is going on here.
They may not compel your speech but they could take away your license to practice medicine if they decide to. This is essentially what happened to Jordan Peterson although it happened in Canada and his was a psychology license.
Government can compel almost anything and we have a choice to comply or possibly suffer consequences from noncompliance.
It can happen in Canada; it’s doubtful whether it can happen in the USA. They can certainly try, but here you could sue them to get your license restored, and you would probably win.
Well, adherence to reality is a form of religion. At least when you look at the religion being imposed (Progressivism) which actually denies it.
they are able to continue to do as the please
B/C THEY TEACH THIS TO THE KIDS IN SCHOOL
so the kids are indoctrinated and then when/if the parents are the (maga) government challenges the left….
the kids are like…I dont get it
whats wrong with doing it leftys/ the teachers way
So UNITL THE SCHOOLS ARE BROUGHT BACK TO MAGA
and/or public funding stops,,, these leftists are STILL WINNING ..doesnt matter how the court decides even against the left
THE CHILDREN BELIEVE THAT THE LEFT IS CORRECT
the fact that they want to fine and/or IMPRISON you shows that they are willing to go to barbaric lengths to achieve their goals
not just something written in a book to scare you
actually to do it
debate doesnt work with leftists
Progressives are imposing their religion. And they don’t believe in freedom of conscience. So, why wouldn’t they force you to recite their creeds?
Someone will always rule. Something will always be worshiped. These uppity Christians have blasphemed against the state religion, and must be punished.
‘Failure to comply can result in penalties of up to $3,500 or imprisonment for 120 days.’
Colorado has criminalized NOT telling or enabling a lie. They call evil, good, and good, evil.
We are at war. Prepare accordingly.
Names and pronouns are fundamentally different. Whether a particular name is ‘female’ or ‘male’ is subjective. Pronouns, on the other hand, are fundamental parts of speech. There’s no subjectivity or ambiguity there.
Regardless, the 1st Amendment forbids the government dictating which must be used.
If they can’t compel people to use English, how can they compel them to mangle it?
Compelling a person to use “preferred pronouns” is fundamentally no different than requiring a store owner to recite when asked “there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.”
Nobody there gaming the system by insisting on “chosen names” that demean the speaker? Why not?
Glad Millhouse is here again to woman-splain things to us. That chick basically ruins this site and I am just quit coming here. It’s ridiculous and absurd.
Get lost. You won’t be missed. You’ve never contributed anything of value here.
Number 1 – PRO JEKT SHUN!
Number 2 – very thin skin, very insecure
Number 3 – unjustified self-regard, Narcissist
Number 4 – Only a loser spends that amount of time commenting, obsessive
Talking to yourself is a bad sign, ahole.
M
i
Milhouse’s comments here remind me of the scene from the movie Billy Madison as follows:
Principal: Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
Indeed you are moronic. Also evil-hearted.
Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g.,
Ms./Mrs./Mx.) 15 with which a person self-identifies, regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy,
gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the person’s identification
The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/2019.2.15%20Gender%20Guidance-February%202019%20FINAL.pdf
This law applies only to “employers and covered entities”. Not to ordinary people. Again, the purpose is to prevent deliberate harassment of employees, tenants, etc., which we should all agree is a bad thing that the government should prevent if it can. This is not the correct way to do that, but that is what it is trying to do.
Who is excluded from following the law?
Governmental Entities?
Politicians?
What is the historically common prefix for a married woman? Mrs.
What is the historically common prefix for a married man? Mr.
What is the historically common prefix for an unmarried young woman? Miss.
What is the historically common prefix for an unmarried young man? Master.
Let me know when I can sue when someone doesn’t address my son as Master Smith.
You raise an interesting point! The near universal form of address for women, despite Mrs and Miss being correct, and often preferred, is Ms. Will Colorado penalise Woke organisations who refuse to use the preferred, and stated, form of address? I doubt it!
So there’s potential here for Colorado to be selective in which forms of name and pronouns they’ll protect and which they won’t. Those they mandate will be protected, those they reject will not be.
OOH. Will school teachers face jailtime if they refuse to address their student as Master John, or Miss Jane? The law requires correct names and pronouns so if those names or forms of address are insisted upon …?
The First Amendment protects the freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think. It also protects against government compulsion to speak the government’s preferred messages. Government has no business interfering with the individual’s right to speak as he thinks, and may not compel a person to speak the Government’s preferred message. Poor taste or offensive speech are not crimes, and somebody taking offense at something you say does not allow government to suppress it, or to punish you for something you don’t say.
America is supposed to be a place where everyone is free to think and speak as they wish, not as government allows or demands.
However harassment is a crime, including verbal harassment, so if they can convince a court that your speech constitutes that they can punish you. That’s what they’re trying here. They’re unlikely to succeed, but that is what is going on.
Probably Reader’s Digest, long ago: child locked itself in bathroom, fire department called, chief asks the sex of the child, parent says boy, chief calls “Come out little girl.” Boy exits.
I’ve previously seen this case reported but wasn’t clear if the conflict was store content, staff speech, or both. This LI piece suggests it’s staff speech rather than content, but couldn’t it be argued that a store selling non-LGTP stock is failing to offer full and equal enjoyment of goods, services etc since if fails to affirm LGTP identity and thus is in breech of Colorado’s amended law?
Alternatively, since Colorado states it is lawful for a person to restrict access to a place of public accommodation to one sex if the discrimination has a legitimate relationship to the goods, services etc offered by it, could BAUB argue that they restrict access to cis-sex individuals, i.e. those whose sex forms the basis of their gender rather than those whose gender is denied in preference for their gender of choice?
Colorado’s rule is based on the notion that gender and sex are divisible, and it’s not clear how, or if, they’re defined rather than assumed. But many people hold sex=gender, thus allowing trannies access to their choice of restroom for instance would constitute as sex discrimination against cis-sex individuals, while failure to do so would count as gender identity/expression discrimination no?
No, I don’t think that can possibly be argued.