An athletic apparel company led by a former gymnastics champion is taking Colorado to court over a recently updated anti-discrimination law regarding gender expression.

XX-XY Athletics, a business focused on women’s sports apparel, is suing the state of Colorado, claiming that a new legal requirement to use chosen names and pronouns in advertising and public interactions forces companies to speak against their beliefs on sex and gender, the Christian Post reported.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by XX-XY Athletics, which was established in March of last year by former national gymnastics champion Jennifer Sey. The company markets itself as supportive of women who oppose the inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories.

Colorado's updated policy is an amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), passed as part of House Bill 25-1312. The measure, which state lawmakers passed in May 2025, is officially titled the “Kelly Loving Act.”

The new law adds protections for “gender expression,” including how an individual chooses to be identified, encompassing their name and pronouns. These protections extend to areas such as housing, employment, public accommodations, and advertising.

Bill Sparks Debate Over Speech and Compliance

According to the lawsuit, the law now mandates that businesses must affirmatively address transgender individuals using their chosen identity, not only during face-to-face interactions but also in how they advertise their services. XX-XY Athletics argues this compels businesses to adopt language they fundamentally disagree with.

In the legal filing, the company stated that it faces threats of government penalties if it does not comply. Sanctions could include cease-and-desist orders, investigations, formal hearings, and the possibility of civil or even criminal consequences.

“This expresses the legislature's intent that it be illegal for public accommodations like XX-XY Athletics… to refer to transgender-identifying individuals with their given names or biologically accurate language,” the complaint stated. It warns that failure to follow the amended statute invites significant legal risk.

First Amendment Arguments Take Center Stage

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal organization that has represented clients in other First Amendment cases, is representing the apparel company. ADF has previously handled similar disputes, including the legal battle featuring Colorado baker Jack Phillips.

ADF attorney Hal Frampton said the law attempts to silence viewpoints that recognize biological differences between men and women. “Colorado continues to place itself on the wrong side of the law by forcing Coloradans to speak against their conscience,” he said.

He continued, “XX-XY Athletics believes women deserve to compete fairly and holds to the commonsense view that biological differences exist between men and women, but Colorado's law places them at risk for speaking the truth.”

Supporters and Critics Clash Over Scope

State Senator Faith Winter, a Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, responded to critics by arguing that the measure is not about policing accidental language. “This isn’t if someone shows up at your workplace and you call them the wrong name or misgender them,” she said. “There has to be intentionality to cause harm.”

Winter added that the intention is to address harmful behavior, not minor mistakes. She emphasized that the law aims to protect individuals from deliberate discriminatory actions in public spaces rather than regulate every instance of speech.

Simultaneously, a separate legal challenge has been raised by a group of conservative advocacy organizations. Backed by Defending Education, a Virginia-based group, the lawsuit argues the law is overly broad and penalizes what they describe as "disfavored speech."

Broader Implications of Public Expression

In their court filing, Defending Education asserted that the Colorado law targets traditional ideas about sex and gender under the guise of promoting inclusion. “The law punishes those who refuse to speak using chosen names and pronouns,” the filing stated, adding that it is designed “to suppress traditional beliefs.”

The group also claimed the statute enforces viewpoint discrimination. “In other words, the law openly discriminates based on viewpoint,” said the legal brief, asserting this runs afoul of fundamental constitutional protections.

Supporters of the law maintain that affording dignity through proper identification is a necessary step toward equality. However, opponents believe it crosses into compelling speech and undermines free expression.

Larger Cultural Tensions Reflected in Courtroom Battle

The legal dispute over the Kelly Loving Act highlights growing national friction over transgender policy in areas like sports, business practices, and public communication. XX-XY Athletics argues that its stance on biological sex and athletic competition is being unfairly penalized under modern anti-discrimination frameworks.

Jennifer Sey, the company’s founder, has long voiced concerns about the direction of women’s sports and has positioned the business as an advocacy platform as well as an apparel brand. The brand’s current legal strategy signals its desire to defend more than just product messaging—it sees the case as a defense of principle.

The court’s eventual decision could have implications beyond this single company, potentially influencing how states around the country draft or enforce similar laws related to gender and speech in public domains.