Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
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 beliefs.Original article source: Colorado parent groups sue state over controversial new transgender law enforcing 'compelled speech'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
6 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Read Indiana University's letter sanctioning professor for speech it claims violates law
Indiana University has sanctioned an outspoken professor at its Bloomington campus following the review of an anonymous complaint about his classroom speech. Professor Ben Robinson is likely the first professor to be punished under Indiana's new intellectual diversity law enacted last year. In a discplinary letter, an executive dean found he conflated "personal life experiences, academic scholarship and pedagogical practice" in violation of the new law. The complaint against Robinson was filed last year and cited classroom comments he made about the university restricting free speech rights, times he's been arrested while protesting, and his views regarding the state of Israel. However, Robinson told IndyStar that irregularities with the handling of his case are concerning. He claims the university did not conduct an investigation and escalated the complaint unfairly. He also believes it's unfair that a single, anonymous complaint can result in this level of punishment. Additional sanctions could subject Robinson to probation, suspension, termination or a host of possible penalties related to promotions, tenure or salary, according to IU code. Read for yourself. Here is the disciplinary letter sent to Robinson: The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Washington Post
7 hours ago
- Washington Post
Judge blocks FTC probe into liberal media watchdog
A federal judge in Washington blocked the Federal Trade Commission from carrying out investigative demands against Media Matters for America, ruling Friday that the agency was likely violating the left-leaning media watchdog group's First Amendment rights.
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump threatens federal unions
Since the most recent lifting of an injunction earlier this month, the Trump administration has canceled previously signed collective bargaining agreements with at least five agencies, and more are expected. Unions acknowledge they are facing a 'setback' and must rethink aspects of their strategy for survival under Trump. Unions had argued Trump was using national security as a pretext to go after organizations that have been vocal in challenging many other administration policies. But a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a Trump administration request to lift the last of several lower court injunctions that broadly blocked implementation of the order. The panel rejected arguments that Trump's order and an accompanying fact sheet blaming 'hostile' unions for trying to 'obstruct agency management' were a sign of the true aim of the order. 'Even accepting for purposes of argument that certain statements in the Fact Sheet reflect a degree of retaliatory animus toward Plaintiffs' First Amendment activities, the Fact Sheet, taken as a whole, also demonstrates the President's focus on national security,' the court determined. In the two weeks since, the Trump administration has quietly terminated collective bargaining agreements at the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Services; the Coast Guard; Citizenship and Immigration Services; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
