Following a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have prioritized religious liberty over anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, Colorado’s conservative Christians are eager for the nation’s highest court to put more pro-LGBTQ policies on the chopping block, which one expert warned could have far-reaching implications for anti-discrimination protections for other groups.
First in line is Colorado’s universal pre-kindergarten program, after SCOTUS announced last month it would hear arguments in a lawsuit against the state by two Catholic parishes. The policy requires preschools to follow statewide nondiscrimination laws to be eligible for funding. Requiring religious institutions to not discriminate against LGBTQ people in order to receive taxpayer funds, the parishes argue, is itself discrimination.
“I think the state has opened its program up to include a lot of different providers. And it’s tailored its program so that the providers it likes can have the rules that they want,” said Amanda Dixon, an attorney at Becket, the legal firm which is representing St. Mary’s Catholic Parish, on KNUS Radio’s The Jeff & Bill Show. “But the providers that it doesn’t agree with, that it doesn’t like, those Catholic providers, can’t structure their programs in the way they like. And that is classic religious discrimination that the Supreme Court has not allowed.”
Colorado’s pro-LGBTQ laws have been a frequent target of Christian conservative legal advocates. In the past decade, the anti-LGBTQ extremist legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has taken three cases from Colorado to SCOTUS on grounds of religious discrimination:
- Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), representing a Christian baker who refused to bake wedding cakes for a gay couple;
- 303 Creative v. Elenis (2022), representing a Christian web designer who refused to make websites with pro-LGBTQ themes;
- Chiles v. Salazar (2026), representing a Christian therapist who wanted to offer talk therapy that would push gay youth to become straight or transgender youth to become cisgender.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has given favorable rulings to the ADF in all three cases. Conservatives in Colorado expect a similar ruling for St. Mary’s.
“From my perspective, I think Colorado’s the most hostile state to Christianity in America, that Jack Phillips, 303 Creative, the Christian counselor case that was just decided at the U.S. Supreme Court, all are essentially about the same thing: whether or not you can be a Christian in the public square,” said conservative radio host Jeff Hunt, formerly the director of Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute, on air. “And what we run up against is the state going, ‘No no no, you need to abide by our progressive pro-LGBTQ mandates, if you want to open a business, you have to use your artistic talents to do something that you may disagree with.’”
Dixon replied, “I think you’re right that the Supreme Court has just repeatedly told Colorado that this is not a way that you can operate, that you can’t just exclude religious points of view from the public square. And you’re right, Colorado just keeps not getting that message. These are different forms, slightly different things that Colorado has tried in order to exclude religious folks from the public square. But the consistent thing here is that Colorado keeps trying and the Supreme Court keeps telling them no.”
But the extent to which SCOTUS has prioritized inclusion of religious groups risks excluding others from that public square, according to Scott Skinner-Thompson, a professor at Colorado Law School.
“They’ve [SCOTUS] really created a broad exception that really risks undermining the purpose of anti-discrimination law, which is to make sure that people of all identities can enter the public sphere without fear of mistreatment,” said Skinner-Thompson.
In following cases like Chiles, Skinner-Thompson said he noticed a pattern of groups like ADF trying to “paint a narrative” of Colorado being more liberal than other states on these issues.
“About half of the states have laws designed to protect LGBTQ people and a variety of conduct. So Colorado is not alone in that regard. And depending on the issue, for example, whether it’s conversion therapy, it’s not as if Colorado was the first case to deal with whether or not conversion therapy bans implicate the First Amendment,” Skinner-Thompson told the Colorado Times Recorder. “There were cases from California, for example, and similarly with regard to 303 Creative, an issue of whether public accommodations laws infringe on the First Amendment. There were cases dealing with that topic from Washington, et cetera.”
While the current court majority is likely to side with St. Mary’s, Skinner-Thompson noted that existing precedent would actually side with the state of Colorado. He referenced the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith (1989), which held that individuals must comply with “a neutral law of general applicability,” meaning the law applies to everyone regardless of religion. Because Colorado’s antidiscrimination policy would apply equally to secular institutions, who might discriminate for non-religious reasons, Skinner-Thompson argued that it does not infringe on religious liberty.
“They’re saying that this burdens their religious exercise. And under Employment vs. Smith, because this LGBTQ non-discrimination requirement is generally applicable, meaning it’s not specific to Catholic preschools, it applies to any private preschool trying to take the subsidy. It should be subject to rational basis review,” he said.
Colorado’s universal pre-kindergarten policy isn’t the only thing the Christian right wants SCOTUS to deal with. In the recent Chiles v. Salazar decision, the court ruled against Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, a form of scientifically dubious therapy aiming to remove a person’s LGBTQ identity. In the wake of this ruling, activists are already gearing up for a rematch over a bill that has not even received the governor’s signature yet. House Bill 1322 would allow a person who was subject to conversion therapy to sue the provider for damages with no statute of limitations, if they can prove that harm was caused as a result of the treatment. The bill was filed to continue to protect conversion therapy survivors in the event of an unfavorable ruling in Chiles.
“The bill doesn’t just allow lawsuits, it makes them incredibly hard to defend. It pretty much assumes that you’re guilty unless you can prove otherwise. It chills and controls speech, and that’s what it’s meant to do,” said former Republican state senator Kevin Lundberg, a founding member of the anti-LGBTQ group Protect Kids Colorado, on KLZ Radio’s The Kim Monson Show. “And, you know, let’s kind of step back and look at this. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly shot down legislation that Colorado has come up with in the last few years. This is one more that’ll have to be challenged and it’ll have to be taken down again if they can. Because it not only is that bad legislation is unconstitutional, and this one goes right after the 1st Amendment, just like what the Supreme Court shot down as the house was dealing with House Bill 1322.”
Though Skinner-Thompson declined to comment on the specifics of the bill to the Colorado Times Recorder, he said the general concept could be received more favorably by the Supreme Court.
“In [Justice Neil] Gorsuch’s opinion, he says, ‘look, malpractice law probably isn’t going to be affected by our decision, because the burdens of proof in a malpractice lawsuit are basically sufficiently rigorous that it would probably withstand heightened scrutiny,'” said Skinner-Thompson. “And so I think what Colorado is trying to do is respond to that and say, ‘well, we can have civil action, a lawsuit allowing this, where the plaintiffs have to comply with a duty of proof, show that this doesn’t comply with the medical standard of care.’ And then that may satisfy the Supreme Court.”
Erin Lee, the Executive Director of Protect Kids Colorado, went on KHOW Radio’s The Dan Caplis Show to discuss HB-1322. During her interview, she called pro-LGBTQ Democrats who support the bill “arrogant” for doing so in the face of SCOTUS’s ruling.
“They [Democrats] truly think, they’re so arrogant, they can do whatever they want, and it will take us years, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Brave plaintiffs will have to fight it again, all the way to the Supreme Court, and they’ll get away with it in the meantime,” Lee said on air. “They just truly think they can do anything they want.”
“You’re right that the process is the punishment in their minds,” said Caplis. “And they know for every brave person who stands up and defeats them, as I expect St. Mary’s will, now that the U.S. Supreme Court took that case. There are how many who just say, ‘I can’t wage this fight,’ and then just give in and forfeit their constitutional rights.”
It’s not the first time Lee has argued pro-LGBTQ laws are passed with malicious intent; she has previously called Democratic lawmakers “demons,” and claimed without evidence that LGBTQ advocacy groups traffic children for sex.
Last year, Protect Kids Colorado joined with multiple other anti-LGBTQ groups to sue the state of Colorado over HB25-1312, also known as The Kelly Loving Act, a bill which expanded rights for transgender people. The lawsuit takes aim at a section of the bill which gives deadnaming and misgendering (referring to a trans person by an incorrect name or gendered pronouns) legal definitions within the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act, which applies to employment, public accommodations, and housing. Lee and others have claimed, falsely, that the law criminalizes deadnaming or misgendering by anyone outside of these contexts.
In addition to 2025’s HB-1312, Lee said she hopes all other Colorado laws providing civil protections for trans people are overturned by the Supreme Court.
“My hope is that this can open the door to [challenging] all the other laws. I’m suing the state over 1312, Protect Kids Colorado is, which compels the speech of all Coloradans to call that man a woman or else face civil penalties,” said Lee in the interview. “But, you know, they compel the speech of teachers, of the people who write the death certificate in Colorado. That comes with a criminal penalty for refusing to call that biological man, a woman on a scientific document that will affect data from the state of Colorado.” [Editor’s note: The bill became law but without any criminal penalty included.]
She continued, “So I hope this opens the door for other paths to follow suit and also sue for the right to free speech. Because it’s not just counselors who are being restricted in the state, it’s everyone. It’s all Coloradans. And I hope more people will pay attention and fight back. And trust me when I say firms like ADF are waiting. They’re chomping at the bit to challenge these laws that continue to come out. They are paying very close attention.”
Skinner-Thompson said the current Supreme Court’s consistent favoring of religious liberty could raise deeper constitutional problems beyond LGBTQ rights.
“It’s going to be hard to cabin the First Amendment exceptions to anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, I think it’s gonna be hard to cabin the objections to only those based on LGBTQ identity,” Skinner-Thompson told the Colorado Times Recorder. “Like if you’re a wedding website designer and you object to interracial marriage. Does that mean you can not make a website [for an interracial couple]? Let’s say you object to interfaith marriages. Does that mean you can not make a web site for people who aren’t, you know, of the same faith? I don’t know.”
Edited 5/7 to clarify one of Skinner-Thompson’s statements.
