In their equal protection challenge, plaintiffs argued that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has applied the law only where business owners disfavor same sex marriages, but not to refusals to produce products with pro-religious messages. The court concluded however that businesses in the other cases were not similarly situated to plaintiff's business.
In rejecting plaintiffs' free speech challenge, the court emphasized that only the clause in the law barring communication of an intent to discriminate was at issue. The court assumed, for purposes of its decision, that the law's "accommodation clause" which is a substantive ban on discrimination is constitutional. This led it to conclude that under Supreme Court precedent:
the government’s ability to regulate unlawful economic activity allows it to prohibit advertisements of this type, even if it must do so by defining the prohibited message based on its content.The court rejected plaintiffs' Free Exercise challenge, finding that the communications clause is a neutral of general applicability.