New California law imposes fines up to $500 on retailers without ‘gender neutral’ section for kids
California Retailers Face Fines for Refusing Gender-Neutral Sections for Children
Large California retailers that refuse to display a gender-neutral section for children could be hit with fines of up to $500 under a new state law set to take effect in the new year.
Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom made California the first state in the nation to pass such a law — Assembly Bill No. 10584 — which mandates that retailers with 500 or more employees display a section that sells childcare items and toys for gender-neutral kids. Newsom signed the bill in 2021 without comment.
“Childcare item,” according to the bill, ”means any product designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, or to help children with sucking or teething.”
Encouraging Gender Neutrality and Breaking Stereotypes
Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), who introduced the legislation, said, “We need to stop stigmatizing what’s acceptable for certain genders and just let kids be kids.” The bill, he said, was designed to “encourage more businesses across California and the U.S. to avoid reinforcing harmful and outdated stereotypes.”
“Part of it is to make sure if you’re a young girl that you can find a police car, fire truck, a periodic table or a dinosaur,” Low reportedly said. “And then similarly, if you’re a boy, if you’re more artistic and want to play with glitter, why not? Why should you feel the stigma of saying, ‘Oh, this should be shamed,’ and going to a different location?”
Former California State Sen. Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) reportedly voted against the bill, arguing that the state should “let parents be parents.”
“Unlike the author, I actually have children, five of them to be exact, and I can tell you it is very convenient for parents,” Melendez said. “I don’t think parents need the government to step in and tell them how they should shop for their children.”
Opposition and Free Market Concerns
Several business and conservative groups fought against California lawmakers passing the legislation, saying state regulations against establishments have made it hard enough and adding on another government requirement disrupts their ability to thrive in a free market.
The Capitol Resource Institute, a public policy organization advocating for Judeo-Christian values, said at the time of the bill’s passage that the group rejects the belief that the California Legislature’s role is “to overstep the natural process of the free market.”
Jonathan Keller, president of the conservative California Family Council lobbying group, dismissed the idea that activists and state legislators have the right to force retailers to adopt government-approved messaging about gender.
“It’s a violation of free speech and it’s just plain wrong,” Keller said in a statement.
Continued Push for Gender Theory
The latest development in California’s effort to become a sanctuary state for radical gender theory pushed onto children comes as big box stores like Target received backlash for its Pride collection, which included controversial bathing suits.
Target’s CEO, Brian Cornell, pulled the items from the shelves earlier this year after the store said its team members experienced threats against them and their “sense of safety and well-being while at work.”
But despite facing opposition for the products, corporations like Target and Lego continue to move forward to offer items that go against fundamental biology.
Lego issued a statement when the bill passed, saying it was working to make toys more inclusive for girls.
“The company is committed to making Lego play more inclusive and ensuring that children’s creative ambitions – both now in the future – are not limited by gender stereotypes,” a statement from Lego said.
Retailers who fail to comply with the legislation beginning on January 1, 2024, will be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for a first violation or $500 for a subsequent violation, according to the bill’s text.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
What are the arguments against “one-size-fits-all” policies and in favor of businesses having the freedom to organize their merchandise and cater to their customers?
Ature should “impose one-size-fits-all policies on businesses and individuals.” They argued that businesses should have the freedom to decide how they want to organize their merchandise and cater to their customers.
Opponents of the law also expressed concern about the potential impact on small businesses, who may not have the resources to comply with the new requirements. They argued that the fines imposed on retailers could be a significant burden for smaller establishments and could even lead to some businesses shutting down.
Supporters of the legislation, however, argue that it is necessary to promote inclusivity and break gender stereotypes. They believe that gender-neutral sections will allow children to explore a wider range of interests and play with toys that they are truly interested in, regardless of societal expectations. They argue that this will ultimately contribute to healthier child development and mental well-being.
It remains to be seen how this new law will be implemented and enforced. Retailers will need to ensure that they comply with the requirements in order to avoid potential fines. They may need to make adjustments in how their merchandise is organized and displayed, as well as ensure that they have a sufficient selection of gender-neutral items available for customers.
The passage of this law in California sets a precedent for other states to consider similar legislation. It brings attention to the ongoing discussions surrounding gender norms and the role of retailers in shaping societal expectations. As the debate continues, it is important for all stakeholders to consider the potential impacts and implications of such laws on businesses, consumers, and the overall retail industry.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
