The Republican-controlled Senate Tuesday voted down a “right to disagree” bill that opponents view as either an untested or euphemistic version of the religious freedom bills introduced in recent years by conservatives around the country that many believe risk diluting the nation’s anti-discrimination laws.

All of the Democrats in the chamber were joined by three Republicans in opposing the bill — Sens. Don Coram from Durango, Beth Martinez Humenik from Thornton, and Jack Tate from Centennial.

Republicans hold a majority of just one vote in the Senate. When what was sure to be a close vote on the bill was called, Minority party Whip Mike Merrifield from Colorado Springs called a “division” vote, in which members stand or sit to be counted.

Civil rights and some religious groups rallied against Senate Bill 283 from the time it was introduced.

“Any bill that attempts to exclude certain practices under the legal definition of discrimination is a bill designed to allow people to discriminate,” said Scott Levin, Mountain States regional director of the Anti-Defamation League at a Capitol press conference. “This bill would make it OK to discriminate if you don’t like the message it sends when you do business with people — ‘those people.’ The problem is, ‘those people’ are you and me, our neighbors, our friends…

“If there are some who don’t like the message being sent when they bake a cake for a gay wedding,” Levin said, “there are others who may not like the message sent by baking a cake for an interfaith couple, for a Muslim couple, or for a Jewish couple.”

He agued that the problem would extend across public business — to hotels, pharmacies, bus services, events centers, and beyond.

“Let’s not forget, the law already allows us to discriminate against others, so long as they’re not part of a protected class… That said, do we really need to put in law the idea that, if I disagree with the language on your T-shirt and the message that it sends, that I can refuse to contract with you to provide goods and services? That is a message I don’t think any Coloradan wants enshrined in law.”

Mario Nicolais, a lawyer and high-profile conservative figure in the state, said he opposed the bill on legal and philosophical grounds.

“I think this bill would undercut the entire public accommodations statute guarding against discrimination, that it would apply to all races and gender, ethnicity and nationality and to religion as well.”

Nicolais argued that the state shouldn’t be made to revisit the battles of the civil rights era.

A week earlier, the bill passed on a party line vote in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

At the hearing, sponsor Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, gave a searching argument in defense of his bill. He characterized it as a rough attempt to address an issue that was “getting closer and closer to everyone” and that would “destroy us” if is left to take its course.

“This issue continues to divide us,” he said. “I’m not trying to get rid of discrimination laws. I’m trying to add balance… We have to find a part of the law that can accommodate the rights of citizens that current law runs roughshod over… What we have found is a complete disregard for the individual who has chosen to go into business. Personal conviction shouldn’t be set aside for political trends. The idea that the government knows right is more Orwellian than it is American.

“I’ve had legal folks say, ‘You’re confusing me with this bill,’” Lundberg admitted. “That’s because we’re trying to do something different…

“I’m open to suggestions that might strengthen the bill,” he said. “I’m very open to adjusting the language to increase its focus.”

“A lot of people said to me, ‘Oh no, don’t go there.’ But I have to go there,” Lundberg said. “The rights of Coloradans are being violated.”

— john@coloradostatesman.com