Colorado, once a beacon of rugged individualism and independence, has developed a troubling pattern in recent years: repeated and aggressive infringements on individual liberty, particularly targeting religious expression and freedom of conscience. While the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in multiple times to defend these liberties, Colorado’s government continues to push a heavy-handed progressive agenda that runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Few cases illustrate this better than that of Jack Phillips, a local Lakewood baker who became a national figure when he declined to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his Christian beliefs. Phillips never refused to sell products to anyone; his objection was specific to using his artistic expression to endorse a message contrary to his faith. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ambushed him, accusing Phillips of discrimination. But in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked the state in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, noting that the Commission had shown clear hostility to Phillips’ religious beliefs. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that “the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs.”
Yet Colorado did not learn its lesson. Lori Smith, a graphic designer and owner of 303 Creative, faced a similar challenge. She wanted to expand her business to include wedding websites, but feared the state would compel her to design messages that contradicted her religious convictions. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), the Supreme Court again stepped in, ruling in Smith’s favor. The Court held that Colorado’s application of its Anti-Discrimination Act to compel speech violated the First Amendment. In other words, the government cannot force content creators to speak or produce in ways that betray their conscience.
Recommended
These are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a consistent pattern: a state government willing to trample individual liberty in pursuit of ideological conformity. The issue is not whether Coloradans should support same-sex marriage or affirm LGBTQ identities—many do, and they have that right. The problem is whether the state should force dissenters to actively participate in messaging they fundamentally oppose.
Religious institutions and organizations are also under threat. Take Camp IdRaHaJe, a Christian camp that recently faced pressure from the state to comply with nondiscrimination policies that could require them to enact policies that violate the camp’s religious beliefs including having trans-identifying minors bunking and using restrooms with other campers of a different gender. Forcing a Christian ministry to compromise on its policies is not about fairness—it is about control. Religious organizations have always had the right to operate in a manner consistent with their mission and beliefs. If the state can override this freedom, then religious liberty itself is in peril.
The latest threat comes in the form of HB25-1312, which was just signed into law by Governor Jared Polis. While cloaked in the language of equality and anti-discrimination, this law will dramatically expand the state’s power to regulate religious and conscience-based institutions. With its passage, we should expect to see even more legal action against faith-based schools, camps and nonprofits that hold traditional views on gender, sexuality and marriage. It signals a disturbing readiness on the part of the state to subject religious convictions to the rule of political orthodoxy.
The pattern is clear: Colorado’s government has repeatedly acted as though it can dictate what its citizens must say, believe and do—so long as those demands serve a progressive agenda. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly had to intervene, affirming that the First Amendment protects not only popular viewpoints but also dissenting ones, especially when rooted in religious faith.
This is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional one. Regardless of one’s position on the social issues at stake, every American should be concerned when any state assumes to itself the power to compel speech, punish belief or redefine religious liberty as bigotry. When the state punishes a baker, a web designer or a camp for living according to their conscience, it undermines the very freedoms that allow our diverse society to flourish.
Colorado’s leaders must be reminded that pluralism does not mean forced conformity. True tolerance allows for disagreement. It allows a baker to serve all customers while declining to celebrate what he cannot endorse. It allows a web designer to respect LGBTQ individuals without having to design messages that conflict with her faith. It allows a Christian camp to remain Christian in its mission.
The Supreme Court has spoken clearly: the First Amendment stands as a bulwark against government overreach. It should not take repeated trips to the nation’s highest court to protect freedoms that are supposed to be foundational. Colorado must reverse course and recommit itself to the principles of liberty and pluralism—or risk becoming a cautionary tale of a state where freedom is only extended to those who fall in line.
Greg Schaller serves as the director of the Centennial Institute, the conservative think tank of Colorado Christian University. He has taught politics at CCU, Villanova University and St. Joseph’s University. He holds a B.A. in political science and history from Eastern University and an M.A. in political science from Villanova University.