Correct. A law is only effective from the date it becomes active forward from the date. Since the law was passed and became effective prior to the date of the event, Ex Post Facto has no bearing.
Section 24-34-601 of the Colorado Code
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
Something can be against the law (in this case Colorado Statutes concerning business practices) but not be a criminal offense. Since it's not a criminal offense there is not arrest or indictment. There is a Civil proceeding.
He won't. Civil code doesn't result in jail time. IIRC, in this case the ruling was simply an injunction from continued discrimination. However he did face fines for each confirmed offense, money that would then have gone to the filer of the complaint.
