Since legislators in the majority just can’t seem to understand the First Amendment, they got schooled by the courts on multiple occasions.

Constitution 101: the First Amendment forbids government agencies, federal, state or local, from enacting a law or regulation “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”

The government cannot quash or coerce speech, establish religion or prevent its exercise. If state legislators and regulators learn these principles, taxpayers will not have to foot the bill for yet another needless trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lesson one: Agencies cannot abridge free speech by forcing people to parrot the government¶¶Òőap ideological message. That¶¶Òőap called coerced speech. A week ago, a Biden-appointed federal judge that requires cigarette pack-style health warnings on gas stoves and imposes a fine of up to $20,000 per violation if they don’t.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, that the law likely infringes on their First Amendment freedoms. “The court disagrees that the labeling requirement merely enables customers to access information — the only reason customers can access this information is because the State compels peddlers of gas stoves to speak it,” the court ruled. “Further 
 whether the information is truthful and accurate is subject to substantial disagreement within the scientific community.”

In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Weiser decision, legislators will want to read the Supreme Court¶¶Òőap 2023 decision in the Colorado case and the cases it cites as homework.

Lesson two: The government cannot abridge free speech by censoring it. Earlier this year, Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, defended her First Amendment rights to the Supreme Court. A 2019 law prohibits counselors from helping clients come to terms with their biological sex through talk therapy. The law threatens counselors with thousands of dollars in fines and a potential loss of license unless they stick to government-approved speech. Based on the justices’ questions during oral argument, the Colorado law is likely to be struck down.

In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Chiles v. Salazar case, legislators will want to read Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc. and the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates. v. Becerra decisions as homework.

Lesson three: The government cannot establish religion, or prohibit its exercise. Laws must be neutral toward religion neither advancing nor hindering its practice, and the government cannot discriminate against people for their beliefs. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court received 19 friend-of-the-court briefs from 22 states, numerous representatives from policy and law think tanks and various faith traditions, and Colorado families urging the Supreme Court to hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a suit brought by the Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes, and two parents of preschool-age children. Colorado has been excluding Catholic preschool providers from its “universal” state preschool program for upholding church doctrines. Catholic families seeking a preschool education that aligns with their faith must pay out of pocket while other families get 15 hours of preschool education for free.  That¶¶Òőap not fair or consistent with the First Amendment.

The state should have learned this lesson earlier this year when it settled a lawsuit brought by Camp IdRaHaJe, a Christian summer camp. The camp can continue to operate its summer programming without compromising its policies regarding biological sex. The state agreed to update its guidelines and website to clarify that “churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes” are exempt from state dictates that force licensed resident camps to permit campers to use dorms and restrooms of the opposite sex.

In addition to familiarizing themselves with Camp IdRaHaJe Association v. Roy, legislators will want to read the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision as homework.

While it¶¶Òőap a heavy reading list, once completed, legislators and regulators can be confident that they will start the new year equipped to establish laws and regulations that are actually consistent with First Amendment rights.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

A Colorado case going before the this week could set nationwide precedent for whether states can bar licensed medical professionals from performing the widely discredited practice of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ kids.

On Tuesday, the conservative-majority court will hear oral arguments in , a case brought by Colorado Springs counselor Kaley Chiles, who alleges the state’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates her First Amendment rights.

The will argue that trying to change a young patient¶¶Òőap sexual orientation or gender identity is substandard medical care, and that greenlighting such care under the umbrella of free speech would “open Pandora’s box” to a litany of licensed professional malpractice.

Nearly half of U.S. states have prohibited the practice of conversion therapy on minors.

But the , an Arizona-based conservative legal organization that is representing Chiles, contends Colorado’s is an attack on licensed medical therapists’ free speech and religious freedoms.

Should the Supreme Court rule in Chiles’ favor, constitutional law expert said not only would the nation’s queer youth be vulnerable to harmful psychological practices, but licensed professionals of all kinds could use the First Amendment as a shield for malpractice, too.

“There are legal malpractice laws that hold lawyers accountable when they give clearly erroneous legal advice,” said Skinner-Thompson, a law professor at the . “There’s medical malpractice when doctors give negligent medical advice. All those things involve communication, and it’s never been controversial or a violation of the First Amendment to regulate that. But that’s exactly what Chiles is asking the Supreme Court to conclude here.”

, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said Chiles’ argument is laser-focused on free speech. He argued that she experienced “viewpoint discrimination” by being forbidden from counseling conversations aimed at helping a client feel “more consistent with their biological sex.”

“These are conversations that clients want and need,” Warner said.

Practice denounced by health groups

Health organizations around the world — including the , the and the — have denounced the practice of conversion therapy and spoken of the harms of trying to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including increased risks of depression, sexual problems, low self-esteem and suicide.

Alex Floyd, health equity director at LGBTQ advocacy organization , said anyone struggling to understand the impacts of conversion therapy should listen to the stories of those who have endured it.

“I worked with many people who have been through conversion therapy, and the damages of that are lifelong and deeply sit in someone’s soul and psyche,” Floyd said. “I hope folks can understand that and listen to folks that have been harmed. We all deserve therapy where we feel safe and heard and get a chance to heal and grow. We shouldn’t have to go to therapy because of our therapy.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser argues that conversion therapy practices are so discredited that they fall under the banner of substandard medical care. To argue that a doctor has the right to provide substandard medical care under the First Amendment would set a dangerous precedent, he said.

For example, if a doctor recommended a child with leukemia skip chemotherapy and instead take Vitamin C, that advice would be substandard care, Weiser said. Shielding poor medical advice under First Amendment protections could mean ill-informed care for anyone, he said.

“We’re about protecting patients,” Weiser said. “Therapists can’t just do things that lack medical basis.”

Warner countered that bans on conversion therapy are what’s harming the nation’s youth.  “Colorado hasn’t identified any study that proves these conversations cause harm,” he said.

In a video , Chiles said Colorado’s conversion therapy ban censors her speech in a way that interferes with her ability to do her job.

“When I am actively having my speech chilled, then I can’t be transparent and honest and genuine with my client, and that’s a real disservice to them,” Chiles said in the video.

Colorado in front of the high court

Colorado has played a notable role in Supreme Court litigation over LGBTQ rights, CU’s Skinner-Thompson said.

In 1996, the court ruled in Romer v. Evans that Colorado’s voter-approved Amendment 2 — which barred municipalities from establishing anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people — was unconstitutional. The noted that passage of the amendment, which earned Colorado the nickname, was born out of a “desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled on a case in which a Lakewood baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, citing his religious objections. The ruling, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, reversed the state’s findings that the baker had discriminated against the couple, instead finding that Colorado was hostile toward him because of his religious beliefs.

And in 2023, the high court ruled that the First Amendment allowed a Colorado graphic designer to refuse to make wedding websites for LGBTQ couples.

“Now, Colorado has elected representatives who have taken a different tack and tried to protect LGBTQ people, and, as a result, Colorado’s laws are being targeted by groups trying to use the First Amendment to create exceptions for and carve-outs against LGBTQ nondiscrimination,” Skinner-Thompson said. “It’s part of a pattern of using the First Amendment to deregulate government more generally speaking, but strike down protections for LGBTQ people, specifically.”

Warner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, said Colorado is the state the organization has seen the most “coercion” from in recent flare-ups between free speech and LGBTQ rights.

“Colorado officials have consistently interpreted laws to censor speech,” Warner said. “Over the past 15 years, Colorado has been a big battleground for First Amendment issues… Kids and families should get to decide the goals they pursue in counseling, and Colorado, by passing this (conversion therapy) law, is taking away options that families and kids want and need, and that¶¶Òőap not good for anyone.”

Weiser noted that Colorado law does not prevent health care professionals from sharing information, content or viewpoints with patients, and that therapists can tell patients about conversion therapy and the religious ministers who can engage in those practices. The law also doesn’t mandate counselors affirm any orientation or identity, Weiser said.

Colorado has not taken disciplinary action against Chiles or any licensed professional for engaging in conversion therapy since the law was enacted, Weiser said.

A federal district court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld Colorado’s law.

“As we are defending this law, we know we’re making sure we’re doing all we can to protect everyone and make sure the LGBTQ community knows you matter and we care about you and we’re not going to let you be harmed,” Weiser said.

Apparently, the lesson was lost on Colorado politicians and bureaucrats who are determined to force people of faith to choose between exercising their religion and serving their clients in the Colorado marketplace.

In February of this year, the Colorado Department of Early Childhood adopted new regulations forcing summer camps to allow biological boys to dress, shower, and room with girls and vice versa, if the camper identifies as a different sex. Camp IdRaHaJe, a 77-year-old camp in Bailey, named after the old song, “I’d Rather Have Jesus,” separates campers by biological sex for bathing, dressing, and sleeping and therefore cannot obey the new rule. After the camp’s administrators asked for an exemption and were denied, they filed suit.

IdRaHaJe is likely to prevail on First Amendment grounds. The government cannot impose its ideological preference about gender without violating the free exercise of religion of those whose creed deems biological sex a meaningful distinction.

The state is also discriminating against Colorado families. There are dozens of day and overnight camps of which only a small minority are faith-based.

Families who believe that gender identity is separate from biological sex and are seeking a camp that will affirm their child’s alternate identity, and families who do not mind if their children share bathrooms and cabins or tents with children of the opposite sex have many options.

Those who consider biological sex an important distinction for maintaining privacy, safety, and religious conviction deserve the same freedom to choose a camp. Rather than waste another dime of taxpayer money defending discrimination against faith-based providers, the state should change its regulations to comply with the First Amendment.

Likewise, politicians need to review the above-mentioned Supreme Court decisions. In 2019, the General Assembly passed a bill censoring the speech of counselors who discuss gender identity. As with the new camp regulations, the law privileges the state’s ideology through coercion. These lawmakers believe that gender is separate from biological sex and is changeable. They consider the only correct response to a child’s discomfort with his or her biological sex is to affirm a desire to change gender. Any attempt by a counselor to help a client under the age of 18 accept his or her biological sex could result in the suspension or revocation of the counselor’s license.

Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case brought by Kaley Chiles, a Colorado licensed professional counselor whose freedom of speech and freedom of religion are being violated by this law. Counselors who want to uphold their religious convictions about biological sex are not the only ones impacted by this discriminatory law. Children and teens seeking counseling to help overcome discomfort regarding their biological sex so they can accept their bodies cannot get the help they want and need.

Even the speech of secular counselors is impacted should they deviate from the Colorado government¶¶Òőap preferences in doing what they think is best for their clients. Two recent scientific  reviews performed by the British National Health Service and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found little scientific support for the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and surgery for youth with gender confusion.

In fact, such interventions put children and teens at greater risk of cancer, heart problems, metabolic disorders, sterility, and impacted neurocognitive development and psychiatric disorders.  Any counselor who even warns patients or their families about the side effects of such interventions risks punishment from the state.

The Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the First Amendment rights of providers and their clients. In the meantime, however, these discriminatory government edicts will continue to violate Coloradans’ rights of free speech and free exercise of religion, and adversely impact the privacy, safety, professional conduct, and even health of those who disagree with the government¶¶Òőap ideology.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday columnist for The Denver Post.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices found they could not consider whether Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, can legally refuse to make a pink-and-blue cake for transgender attorney Autumn Scardina to celebrate her gender transition on the grounds that doing so would violate his Christian faith.

“The underlying constitutional question this case raises has become the focus of intense public debate: How should governments balance the rights of transgender individuals to be free from discrimination in places of public accommodation with the rights of religious business owners when they are operating in the public market?” Justice Melissa Hart wrote in the majority opinion. “We cannot answer that question.”

Scardina’s attorney, John McHugh, expressed disappointment and said he was evaluating if there were any remaining legal options.

“The Colorado Supreme Court decided to avoid the merits of this issue by inventing an argument no party raised,” McHugh said.

Phillips’ attorney, Jake Werner with the Arizona-based firm Alliance for Defending Freedom, said Tuesday that his client had been pursued and mocked for years by those who disagreed with him.

“Enough is enough,” Werner said. “Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It¶¶Òőap time to leave him alone.”

The ruling brings to a close a seven-year legal saga in which Phillips had argued that his actions were lawful because he refused to make the cake only because of the cake’s message, not because Scardina is transgender. His refusal to create a cake with that meaning is protected by the First Amendment, his attorneys argued.

But Scardina’s attorneys pointed out that a blue-and-pink cake has no inherent meaning and that the bakery would make and sell identical cakes to other customers. The bakery initially agreed to make a pink-and-blue cake for Scardina, until she explained its meaning.

Scardina, who is also a Christian, pursued a discrimination claim against Phillips after he refused to bake the cake in 2017. She filed a claim under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, which prohibits businesses from refusing services based on protected characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation.

When that claim was dismissed, she sued Phillips in district court, and the case from there rose through the state’s courts all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court. However, the justices ruled Tuesday that Scardina had no procedural authority to file the case in district court, and so the case must be dismissed.

“CADA is not ambiguous,” Hart wrote. “It is quite clear about when a litigant may file an action in the district court… None of the circumstances that permit an action in the district court occurred here. We therefore vacate both the division’s and the district court¶¶Òőap orders and dismiss this case. In so doing, we express no opinion about the merits of Scardina’s claims, and nothing about today’s holding alters the protections afforded by CADA.”

Chief Justice Monica MĂĄrquez and justices Brian Boatright and Carlos Samour joined the majority opinion. Justices Richard Gabriel, William Hood and Maria Berkenkotter dissented, calling the ruling “troubling on many levels.” Scardina was within her rights to sue in district court, the dissenting justices argued.

“Substantively, the majority’s ruling throws Scardina completely out of court and deprives her of the opportunity to seek a remedy for alleged discriminatory conduct based on a novel interpretation of law that no party asserted and, to my knowledge, no court has adopted,” Gabriel wrote in the dissent.

The state Supreme Court’s procedural pass ends another chapter in a more than decade-long saga for Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Phillips in 2012 also refused to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, and won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 when the justices ruled he could refuse to make the cake because of his religious convictions.

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that a Colorado graphic designer could refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples because of her Christian faith. The justices in that case found the websites were expressive content protected by the First Amendment, and that the state could not force the designer to create messages she does not believe in.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The First Amendment prevents Congress from making laws that abridge the right to free expression and free exercise of religion and thanks to the 14th Amendment, state and local governments, cannot make such laws either.

The flip side to the right to expression is the right to be silent. The government cannot coerce individuals into advocating beliefs contrary to their own.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision affirmed that right. It said the state cannot coerce individuals into advocating for ideas with which they disagree even at their place of business. “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch

Advocating or expressing belief isn’t just done with words but through symbols like the Star of David, the Republican elephant and the Democratic donkey, peace signs, the Hindu Om figure, pink triangles, the Gadsden Flag, and through events that celebrate and commemorate beliefs.

The government cannot force an atheist to wear a hijab, a musician to play the communist Internationale, or a Kosher deli to serve a ham sandwich. Likewise, it cannot force a baker to make a blue and pink cake for a gender transition celebration. The baker has the right not to advocate.

This right, protected by the First Amendment, was the subject of this week’s Colorado Supreme Court hearing. Autumn Scardina, a biological man who lives as a woman, sued Jack Phillips, owner of the Lakewood Masterpiece Cakeshop, under Colorado’s public accommodation law after the baker refused to make a gender transition celebration cake.

Scardina initially went after Phillips by filing a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Phillips countersued and the state, chastened by an earlier U.S. Supreme Court loss in the , backed off. If the Colorado Supreme Court fails to uphold Phillips’ rights, it is likely to be castigated once more.

The right to expression free of state coercion is essential not only for individual liberty but for a free society with a thriving marketplace of ideas.

Can a person be born into the wrong body? That¶¶Òőap a metaphysical question.

Can a person have a different gender than his biological sex? That¶¶Òőap for each person to decide.

Should individuals who live as the opposite sex be allowed to use sex-segregated spaces that do not correspond with their biological sex (bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, sports teams, etc.). That¶¶Òőap a political question.

Science cannot answer these answers. It can only answer questions about biological sex affirming that there are two sexes, male and female, which are determined at the beginning of life. Everything else is up for grabs.

The First Amendment protects individuals as they answer metaphysical, cultural, and political questions about identity and other issues. The First Amendment also protects the free exercise of religion. Differing faith traditions including atheism provide different answers to metaphysical questions about the nature of being, the meaning of life, relationship to deity or deities, revelation, and morality. This includes questions about gender.

The state on its own or at the behest of an individual cannot under the Constitution deny individuals the right to advocate or the right not to advocate by word or by symbol. The Colorado court can spare the taxpayer another trip to D.C. by affirming it.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Are they artists in the true sense of the word? Are they somehow expressing something when they put together the sandwich precisely as you request it?

Instinctively, many of us would say “no.” Slapping cheese, meat, and condiments onto bread does not seem like the sandwich makers’ speech, especially when they are simply following the customer’s instructions. But the Colorado Supreme Court is considering a case not far removed from that hypothetical. The case has significant implications for non-discrimination protections not only in Colorado but beyond.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. v. Scardina, the bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to make a cake for Autumn Scardina after she disclosed she was transgender. Specifically, Scardina asked Masterpiece to make a custom pink birthday cake with blue frosting. There were no other design elements, words, or messages on the cake. Masterpiece first agreed to make the cake. But once Scardina disclosed to the bakery that the cake colors celebrated her gender transition from male to female, the owner declined to make the cake, claiming that doing so conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs.

The refusal arguably violates the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Masterpiece, however, contends that being required to make the cake would compel expressive speech contrary to their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. To be protected by the First Amendment, the compelled act must be “speech,” in that it must be expressive.

If the court holds that there is a First Amendment violation, then enforcement of Colorado’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of gender identity (and other bases, such as gender, race, or sexual orientation) will be significantly curtailed.

How did we get here, where courts are asking whether baking a cake is speech?

This isn’t Masterpiece Cakeshop’s first rodeo. Previously, it was victorious at the U.S. Supreme Court in a case where the owner also refused to make a cake, this time for a same-sex wedding. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly concluded that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated hostility to the religious convictions of the owner, Jack Phillips, when they ruled he had discriminated against the same sex couple who had filed suit.

More relevant to the current Masterpiece case, however, is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In yet another LGBTQ+ rights case out of Colorado, the Court held that the First Amendment can outweigh civil rights protections. In that case, a web designer refused to create a bespoke wedding webpage for a gay couple given her religious objections to same-sex marriage. While a clear violation of CADA, the Supreme Court nevertheless allowed 303 Creative to refuse to create the webpage. According to the Court, the webpage design was expressive and thus protected as speech by the First Amendment.

The holding in 303 Creative reaches far beyond concerns of religious liberties. Under the Supreme Court¶¶Òőap reasoning, any business could deny a putatively speech-producing service to a person belonging to a protected class simply because it is philosophically or politically opposed to that group. Religious objections are not necessary.

The key inquiry for the intersection of non-discrimination protections and the First Amendment is whether the relevant acts qualify as speech due to their expressive character. Speech extends beyond the spoken or written word. The U.S. Supreme Court generally has taken an expansive view, including things like flag burning, arm bands, and parades.

The question before the Colorado Supreme Court is whether baking a cake as directed by the client constitutes expression by the baker. To us, this case is more like the Subway Sandwich Artist. You tell the Artist what you want on the sandwich, and they make it. No expression is involved. Similarly, the baker was given specific directions for the color of the cake. There was no creative input on the baker’s part, nor was there a message included on the cake. Indeed, as the Colorado Court of Appeals observed, Phillips agreed in general that a pink cake with blue frosting has no “particularly inherent meaning.”

There may be circumstances in which businesses’ services involve expression of their own, but this isn’t one of them. The Colorado Supreme Court has this route to conclude that the denial of services to Scardina should violate CADA on this narrow ground, which is what the Court of Appeals concluded.

This approach would leave unanswered a broader question: what if the baker did provide input into the design of the cake, like the webpage designer in 303 Creative? The Colorado Court of Appeals reasoned that “this act of creating a custom cake 
 is inherently expressive and therefore entitled to First Amendment protection.”

Regardless of this assessment, we think there is still space for a broader ruling: that the non-discrimination protections at stake in the case survive First Amendment review. Even if the Court decides the pink and blue cake is Masterpiece’s speech (rather than Scardina’s), the interest in protecting people from outright discrimination based on gender identity outweighs any speech interests at stake in these cases.

In legal jargon, the CADA survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest: stopping discrimination in the commercial sphere against people based on their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, race, and other protected classes. The laws are narrowly tailored because such prohibitions are the only means to eliminate discrimination in public accommodations. That interest is unrelated to speech regulation.

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, courts will have to discern what constitutes protected “expressive” versus unprotected “non-expressive” conduct in various commercial settings to determine whether a party can discriminate. 303 Creative has sent us down a rough path that hopefully the Colorado Supreme Court can help smooth.

Tim Holbrook and Alan Chen are both professors of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.  Holbrook is an advocate for the LGBTQ+ community and served as co-counsel for former National Football League players supporting marriage equality. Chen is a leading national expert in free speech and the First Amendment.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The announcement by the Colorado Supreme Court is the latest development in the yearslong legal saga involving Jack Phillips and LGBTQ+ rights.

Phillips won a partial victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake but was later sued by Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, who asked his suburban Denver bakery to make a pink cake with blue frosting for her birthday. It refused after Scardina explained it would celebrate her transition from male to female.

The justices didn’t explain how or why they made the determination. It was announced in a long list of decisions about which cases they will hear and reject.

The case involves the state’s anti-discrimination law that makes it illegal to refuse to provide services to people based on protected characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation. The key issue in the case is whether the cakes Phillips creates are a form of speech and whether forcing him to make a cake with a message he does not support is a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

Earlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals sided with Scardina in the case, ruling that the cake was not a form of speech. It also found that the anti-discrimination law that makes it illegal to refuse to provide services to people based on protected characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation does not violate business owners’ right to practice or express their religion.

Graphic artist Lorie Smith, who is also from Colorado and also represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, challenged the same state law in the 303 Creative case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June. The court¶¶Òőap conservative majority said forcing her to create websites for same-sex weddings would violate her free speech rights.

“We are grateful that the Colorado Supreme Court will hear Jack Phillips’ case to hopefully uphold every Coloradan’s freedom to express what they believe,” said Jake Warner, Phillips’ Alliance Defending Freedom attorney. “Jack has been targeted for years by opponents of free speech, and as the U.S. Supreme Court recently held in 303 Creative v. Elenis, no one should be forced to express messages they disagree with.”

Scardina’s attorney, John McHugh, said that the 303 Creative ruling was narrow and applied only to businesses that are creating speech of their own — which the Colorado Court of Appeals had already ruled did not include Phillips’ company making the cake.

McHugh added that he was “excited” Colorado’s high court would hear the challenge.

“It¶¶Òőap very important for businesses and the public in Colorado to understand that our anti-discrimination law still is in full force and there is no general right to discriminate against people in Colorado if you’re a business owner,” said McHugh.

Phillips maintains that the cakes he creates are a form of speech and asked the state Supreme Court to consider his appeal in April.

Scardina, an attorney, attempted to order her cake on the same day in 2017 that the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case. During trial, she testified that she wanted to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips’ statements that he would serve LGBTQ+ customers.

Before filing her lawsuit, Scardina first filed a complaint against Phillips with the state and the civil rights commission, which found probable cause that he had discriminated against her.

Phillips then filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado, accusing it of a “crusade to crush” him by pursuing the complaint.

In March 2019, lawyers for the state and Phillips agreed to drop both cases under a settlement Scardina was not involved in. She pursued the lawsuit against Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop on her own.

Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

But things were a little bumpy early on. Lorie Smith is a Denver-area graphic artist. She launched 303 Creative to love her neighbors while promoting causes close to her heart. Like most artists, Lorie works with all people but can’t express all messages. For Colorado officials, that was a problem. Lorie learned that officials would misuse state law to force her to say things about marriage she doesn’t believe if she were to start making wedding websites with marriage stories that she reported and wrote.

This is the norm in Colorado. For some years, state officials and others have been trying to punish cake artist Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, for refusing to create art inconsistent with his beliefs. Lorie feared the same punishment, so she faced a grueling choice: curb her business, change her beliefs, or challenge an unjust law. She chose to protect free speech both for herself and those who disagree with her. And it¶¶Òőap a good thing she did.

Now, the Supreme Court has held that the government can’t force Lorie to express things she doesn’t believe. The ruling protects all people — including those who disagree with Lorie’s views. As the opinion notes, the state of Colorado’s position “would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty.” The ruling ensures that speakers—not the government—choose what they say.

But not everyone is cheering. Critics say this win will take us back to dark times in our nation’s past. That¶¶Òőap a lie. States will continue to apply public-accommodation laws to stop discrimination based on who someone is. The ruling protects only people speaking–people like Lorie who decide which projects to take based on what they will express, not who requests them. Lorie’s win ensures only that states do not misuse their laws to punish speakers they disagree with.

As our nation has matured, its commitment to free speech has enabled our most significant progress — from abolishing slavery and securing women’s right to vote to passing the Civil Rights Act and protecting equal opportunities for women and girls. Some may think these advances were inevitable, but those movements flourished because our nation refuses to coerce people whose speech the government disagrees with. Without the freedom to speak, we shutter diverse views, meaningful debate, and the condition for progress.

Protecting free speech is also rooted in love for our neighbors. It extends the same freedom for others that we seek to enjoy ourselves. No matter whether you agree with Lorie’s view on marriage, President Biden’s view on Ukraine, or Governor Polis’ view on gun control, all Americans should cheer Lorie’s win because it ensures that government cannot compel views it disagrees with. You can disagree with Lorie’s views yet celebrate her freedom to express them — because it¶¶Òőap the same freedom that ensures you can say what you believe without punishment.

This June has made many winners. Congratulations to Nuggets fans, who are celebrating their team’s first NBA title, and to students who finished the academic year strong. But unlike an NBA title or final grade, where some win and others fail, 303 Creative is a win for all Americans. Free speech came out on top. So take up the pen, load the camera, and clean the paintbrush — you can now speak. Freely.

Jake Warner is senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal), which represents Lorie Smith and 303 Creative.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Soon, Denverites may have the chance to learn about this history in “Lavender Hill,” which organizers hope will be Colorado’s first queer cultural district.

Denver-based designer Zach Kotel and the Colfax Business Improvement District have teamed to create Lavender Hill in collaboration with LGBTQ+ leaders, such as Rex Fuller, the CEO of the Center on Colfax, and Tara Jae, founder of Black Pride Colorado. They are also working with an advisory board that includes leaders and business owners in the area. The district would encompass parts of Capitol Hill, City Park, City Park West, Cheesman Park, Baker and Five Points, based on the locations of queer historical sites from the 1930s to today.

The Mile High City’s LGBTQ+ scene is already robust, especially in the neighborhoods that Lavender Hill will include, so Kotel says he’s just trying to further solidify the queer-centered establishments that have been providing safe space and support for decades.

“We’re trying to connect the dots between different people in the community,” Kotel said. “That may be in terms of social connections, business connections, or what we’re calling resource connections — things like mental health services.”

Kotel, who identifies as gay and grew up in Denver, was inspired to create Lavender Hill when he learned about an upcoming mural district in Philadelphia at a conference in 2021. He says he saw his community aching for connection after the pandemic and wanted to combine the benefits of an art district and a historic district into something that could benefit and celebrate the queer community and the establishments they frequent. He connected with the Colfax BID, the Center on Colfax and Black Pride Colorado, and they rallied around the idea to co-found the district.

“There is a rainbow of queer folks, and being able to show the spectrum of folks who are in the community and the businesses that we run [and] we frequent really need to be uplifted,” Jae said. “I think that is the priority of it.”

One of the goals of the district is to connect the queer community to more Denver businesses. The Center on Colfax Denver PrideFest alone generates $25 million for the local economy each year; Lavender Hill’s organizers think they can expand that impact to hit year-round.

“Leveraging that to be throughout the year and helping that lead to a sense of place that is defined by queerness,” Kotel said. “That may be as simple as more rainbow flags in more businesses all the time.”

But economic benefits of a queer cultural district are only the tip of the iceberg. Lavender Hill’s advisory board hopes to centralize the availability of resources for LGBTQ people, like the housing, legal and employment resources offered by the Center on Colfax.

“We really hope to see ourselves as one of the centerpieces of the cultural district that will help people find the Center, find the programming that we offer, and that we can help teach people about the important history that has been placed in Colorado,” Fuller said.

Right now, Lavender Hill is in the early stages of development. Based on a community survey, its leaders have only just chosen the name, and it¶¶Òőap fitting: not only is the color lavender with the LGBTQ community, but the shortened moniker “Lav Hill” is a nod to the “Cap Hill” neighborhood. It also fits within the state’s overall image.

“The state’s motto is ‘Colorful Colorado,’” Kotel said. “What better way to say what makes Colorado colorful than the queer community?”

The second step took place last weekend with the installation of an art project called ” It features photos taken by Black Pride Colorado organizer Eboni Coleman and quotes from 17 members of Denver’s queer community. The installation, which spotlights how LGBTQ Coloradoans find joy and belonging in their daily lives, is up now along Colfax Avenue and the Pride Parade route from Cheesman Park to Civic Center. It’s a new addition to the Colfax BID’s annual series and is the first “placemaking” project for Lavender Hill.

After that, Lavender Hill’s organizers will need to gain official recognition for the district from the state. Kotel says the advisory board is unclear on what this process will look like, as Lavender Hill may fall in a gray area between a historic and cultural or creative district. However, they’re moving forward with community outreach, hoping collaboration with the city isn’t far behind.

“In our immediate future, we’re hoping to do some kind of ribbon cutting event to celebrate the official start of this effort,” said Kotel. “We’ll be working on branding and creating a website and all of that important infrastructure stuff that we’ll need to do the formal process. So we’re being very deliberate. The community is bringing us to the city.”

Colorado’s LGBTQ history hasn’t always been a merry one. After the 1992 passage of Amendment 2, Colorado was dubbed the “.” But more than 20 years later, after the re-election of the nation’s first openly gay governor and a barrage of , Lavender Hill seeks to solidify Colorado’s status as a leader for LGBTQ equality.

“Denver is just such a center of gravity in the West,” Kotel said. “We’ve kind of gotten to a point where people are generally accepting. I think after accepting is celebrating, so it’s definitely meant to highlight queer joy, positive contributions that the queer community has made, tell stories that aren’t just about crisis and demonstrate Colorado’s values.”

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, In The Know, to get entertainment news sent straight to your inbox.

Re: “Colorado baker loses appeal over transgender birthday cake,” Jan. 27  news story

While I don’t particularly agree with his viewpoints, I don’t understand why groups continue to harass this Masterpiece Cakeshop baker under the guise of “freedom of speech.”

To me, there is a difference between walking into a shop and being refused service because of a person’s particular orientation and asking that shop to design something specific related to that orientation. Other options are readily available by going to a shop that is very willing to work with that customer. I don’t believe anyone has the right to force people to produce something that takes special effort if they don’t want to unless an emergency is involved and no other immediate options are available.

Give this guy a break and stop trying to force change where it is not warranted!

Diane Silver, Broomfield

Pet restrictions in housing create hardships for humans and animals alike

Our animal shelters are filling up fast, and the lack of pet-friendly housing continues to be one of the reasons pets are surrendered. Many of these pets may not get back to their families, be adopted or find a foster family. Sadly, they will be euthanized due to a lack of available shelter space. That¶¶Òőap why the Colorado legislature needs to pass House Bill 1068, the Pet Animal Ownership in Housing Act!

This legislation would do several things to help Colorado pet owners find and keep housing. It prohibits the use of pet security deposits, which act as a barrier to getting housing with a pet, and result in animals being put in shelters. It would provide a damage mitigation fund for landlords who do need restitution after animal-caused damage so that good pet owners are not penalized in advance, but landlords get reimbursed if they need it.

The bill will also increase the supply of pet-friendly affordable housing developments, provide guidance on pets who are found after an eviction and prohibit insurance restrictions based on breed.

With housing costs being so high and animal shelters so crowded, we need to reduce the barriers to housing for people with pets. This bill will help to do that! Pets are a vital part of many families in Colorado; many of them shut down and do not thrive in shelter settings.

Please help Colorado pets and families and get the word out on the Pet Animal Ownership in Housing Act.

Elaine Tharpe Knox, Centennial

E-bike vouchers are not easy to snag online for everyone

On Tuesday, 860 e-bike rebate vouchers were gone in 20 minutes online. How about rethinking the method for getting these out to the public? There are many people that can’t sit at a computer to compete online to get their applications in for this opportunity. Others might not have the means to do this in the first place. How about considering a lottery that is more equitable for all? The next dates for more vouchers are all available. Let people prepare and enter their applications ahead of time to be randomly selected for those opportunities.

Although at 69, some would think I should be leaning towards an e-bike, I prefer to peddle with all my own power. Having done this for decades domestically and some internationally, there is just something about pushing myself for as long as I am able to do so. Maybe it¶¶Òőap slower, there is less climbing and the rides are shorter, but I’m happy doing things my way. Just give me a shout-out as you fly by on my left!

Ellen Schiff, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.