Colorado HOA Religious Displays

Section 1 — Overview: How religious displays are regulated in Colorado HOAs

Colorado is one of a minority of states with an express statutory religious-display protection. Under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5), an association may not prohibit the display of a religious item or symbol on the entry door or entry door frame of a unit, notwithstanding any conflicting provision in the declaration, bylaws, or rules.¹ That protection is layered on the federal Fair Housing Act, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, and the recorded declaration. The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), is the federal floor and bars religious discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing, reaching displays the state statute doesn't cover.² Here's a misconception worth clearing up: the First Amendment doesn't constrain associations. It generally doesn't, because private associations aren't state actors. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S. § 24-34-502, prohibits religious, or creed, discrimination in housing and is enforced by the Colorado Civil Rights Division, providing a parallel state route for displays outside the statute.³ The statute reaches only the entry door and door frame of a unit and is subject to enumerated exceptions; other displays — yard statuary, windows, holiday decorations away from the door — fall to CC&R rules read against fair housing law. Nationally, Colorado sits alongside California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Texas as a statute state. The sections ahead lay out the framework, the compliance obligations it creates, recent activity, and Colorado's national position.

Section 2 — The legal framework

2A. The First Amendment threshold and the federal Fair Housing Act

The First Amendment's Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses restrain government, not private parties. Community associations are private entities and generally aren't state actors, so a homeowner can't assert a First Amendment claim directly against an association over a display rule. A narrow line of state-constitutional free-speech authority exists elsewhere, notably in New Jersey, but it's an outlier — neither the Colorado rule nor the federal baseline. The operative federal framework is the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.⁴ Section 3604(b) makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities, because of religion, and courts apply it to associations acting as housing providers.² Two liability theories apply. Disparate treatment is intentional differential treatment — permitting secular door items while banning a mezuzah, or allowing one faith's symbols while removing another's. Disparate impact arises when a facially neutral rule falls more heavily on observant adherents of a religion without adequate justification, such as a blanket ban on any object affixed to a doorpost that in practice excludes those whose faith requires such a display. The Supreme Court recognized disparate-impact liability under the Fair Housing Act in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015).⁵ The leading door-display authority is Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc), in which the court held that a condominium association's enforcement of a corridor rule to remove a mezuzah could state a Fair Housing Act claim.⁶ Bloch is a Seventh Circuit decision and is persuasive only — it isn't binding in Colorado, which sits in the Tenth Circuit. HUD's harassment rule addresses associations as well: 24 C.F.R. § 100.7 sets standards for direct and vicarious liability for discriminatory housing practices, and § 100.600 defines quid pro quo and hostile-environment harassment.⁷ The Fair Housing Act matters in a statute state precisely because it governs items the Colorado statute doesn't reach, including yard displays, windows, and decorations away from the door. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., constrains government land-use regulation and institutions, and it generally doesn't apply to private association display rules.⁸

2B. The Colorado statute and state fair housing law

The centerpiece is C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5), which provides that, notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws, or rules to the contrary, an association shall not prohibit the display of a religious item or symbol on the entry door or entry door frame of a unit.¹ The subsection was added by House Bill 20-1200, which the Colorado Division of Real Estate confirms was signed into law on June 30, 2020, and which was enacted with a safety clause.⁹ The right isn't absolute. An association may prohibit the display or affixing of an item to the extent that it threatens public health or safety, hinders the opening or closing of an entry door, violates federal or state law or a municipal ordinance, contains graphics, language, or any display that's obscene or otherwise illegal, or, individually or in combination with other religious items or symbols, covers an area greater than thirty-six square inches.¹ The statute defines a "religious item or symbol" as an item or symbol displayed because of a sincerely held religious belief, and it lets an association performing maintenance, repair, or replacement of an entry door or door frame require temporary removal, with individual notice to the owner, after which the owner may display the item again.¹ The "notwithstanding any provision to the contrary" clause voids conflicting declaration, bylaw, or rule language to the extent of the conflict. The protection sits inside the broader "prohibitions contrary to public policy" provision, which also protects flags, signs, renewable-energy generation devices, drought-tolerant landscaping and xeriscaping, and use of public rights-of-way.¹ The scope boundary is the entry door and door frame of "a unit." The Common Interest Ownership Act is a unified statute governing condominiums, planned communities, and cooperatives, so the protection isn't condominium-only and doesn't split by community type. The main vintage question is application to communities created before the Act's July 1, 1992 effective date, governed by C.R.S. § 38-33.3-117 — that section extends the public-policy provisions of §§ 38-33.3-105 to 111 to preexisting communities, so § 38-33.3-106.5 reaches pre-1992 communities.¹⁰ The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S. § 24-34-502, parallels the Fair Housing Act on religion, or creed, and is enforced by the Colorado Civil Rights Division, providing the state route for displays the statute doesn't cover.³

2C. The Common Interest Ownership Act, CC&Rs, and the limits on enforcement

In practice, associations regulate displays through architectural and aesthetic covenants, holiday-decoration limits, and sign and flag rules. Because the Common Interest Ownership Act is unified, these powers and their limits don't vary by community type. For an item the statute covers — a religious item or symbol on the entry door or door frame of a unit — a conflicting covenant is void to the extent of the conflict by operation of the "notwithstanding" clause, subject to the enumerated exceptions and any reasonable size or placement parameters the statute permits. For items the statute doesn't reach, covenants remain enforceable as contract terms, but the Fair Housing Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act constrain them and bar their use to discriminate on the basis of religion. The order of precedence runs: federal and state fair housing law and § 38-33.3-106.5, then the recorded declaration, then bylaws, then board rules. The operational takeaway: a door or door-frame religious item on a unit is protected by statute subject to the exceptions, while other displays are governed by the declaration read against the fair housing floor.

Section 3 — Compliance obligations created by the framework

A. Statutory door-and-door-frame obligations

An association must not prohibit a religious item or symbol on the entry door or entry door frame of a unit, and may restrict such a display only through the statute's enumerated exceptions and permitted reasonable parameters, including the thirty-six-square-inch limit. This obligation flows from the Colorado statute, C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5).¹ Any declaration, bylaw, or rule that conflicts is void to the extent of the conflict and should be revised.

B. Anti-discrimination obligations

An association must not treat one religion's displays less favorably than others' or than secular displays, and must enforce display rules even-handedly across faiths — a neutral rule that in practice excludes observant adherents creates disparate-impact exposure. These obligations flow from the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), and from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S. § 24-34-502.^2,3

C. Holiday-decoration, multi-faith, and rule-drafting obligations

Decoration policies should account for multiple faith calendars, and display and architectural rules should be facially neutral, avoid naming specific symbols, and conform to § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5) for door and door-frame items. Boards should document a legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale for any restriction. These obligations draw on mixed sources — the Colorado statute for door and door-frame items and the Fair Housing Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act for the broader anti-discrimination baseline.^1,2

D. Notice, hearing, and enforcement obligations

Before fining an owner or compelling removal of a display, an association must follow the notice and opportunity-to-be-heard procedures in the declaration and the Common Interest Ownership Act, including Colorado's covenant-enforcement and fine procedures — defective process compounds exposure. This obligation flows from the Act and the CC&Rs.¹¹ Across all four obligations, the statute mandates protection of a door or door-frame religious item on a unit subject to its exceptions, while the broader fair-housing framework governs other displays. Fair-housing obligations apply regardless of community type or vintage. Because the Common Interest Ownership Act is unified, the display obligation doesn't vary by community type; the principal vintage question is pre-1992 application under § 38-33.3-117.

Section 4 — Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

Subsection (1)(c.5) originates in House Bill 20-1200, 2020, which is the source of the door and door-frame protection and is background rather than recent activity.¹² The Colorado General Assembly has continued to amend § 38-33.3-106.5 and to reform HOA covenant-enforcement mechanics, but no measure in the recent window has changed the religious-display subsection. The most relevant recent enforcement measure is the one that governs the fine and cure procedures applying when an association enforces a display rule.

For context, two other recent bills amended § 38-33.3-106.5 without touching the religious-display subsection: House Bill 22-1139, on public rights-of-way, added subsection (1)(d.5), and Senate Bill 24-134, on home-based businesses, added subsection (1)(l).^13,14 House Bill 24-1337 reformed HOA collections and foreclosure but didn't amend § 38-33.3-106.5.¹⁵

B. Recent rulings

This research located no published decision in the recent window from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado or the Tenth Circuit applying the Fair Housing Act to religious displays or association religious discrimination, and no Colorado Court of Appeals or Colorado Supreme Court decision interpreting § 38-33.3-106.5 or the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act as applied to displays. The anchoring authorities remain Inclusive Communities, 576 U.S. 519 (2015), on disparate-impact liability, and Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc), on door displays — Bloch is persuasive only in Colorado.^5,6 Federal Fair Housing Act claims in Colorado proceed through the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the Tenth Circuit; state-law claims under § 38-33.3-106.5 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act proceed through Colorado District Courts to the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court.

C. Active legislative debates

No active Colorado proposal specific to religious displays turned up in this review. The number of states codifying religious door-display protections has grown, and Nevada joined that group with Senate Bill 201, which the Nevada Legislature's enrolled bill makes effective July 1, 2025 and which caps protected displays at 36 by 12 inches.¹⁶

Section 5 — National positioning and related coverage

Colorado belongs to the statute-state category, alongside California (Civil Code § 4706), Connecticut (General Statutes § 47-230a), Florida (Statutes § 718.113(6) for condominiums), Illinois (Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 605/18.4), Nevada (Senate Bill 201, amending NRS Chapter 116), Rhode Island (General Laws § 34-37-5.5), and Texas (Property Code § 202.018).^{17,18,19,20,16,21,22} In the majority of states, the Fair Housing Act and state fair housing law govern without a display-specific statute. Colorado's approach has a distinguishing feature: the protection sits inside a broader public-policy expression provision — flags, signs, solar, xeriscaping, rights-of-way — with express enumerated exceptions, rather than being a standalone mezuzah statute, which is why some national mezuzah-statute surveys that predate or overlook the 2020 amendment don't list Colorado. For a multi-state operator, the Fair Housing Act floor is uniform nationwide, while statute states layer on door and door-frame rules that vary state by state in scope and exceptions.

This coverage updates quarterly as the legislature and the Colorado and federal courts act. The Fair Housing Act is the operative federal framework for this topic, while other federal frameworks — the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the FCC's OTARD rule — also apply to Colorado associations.

Footnotes

1. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5(1)(c.5), Colorado Revised Statutes Title 38 (Office of Legislative Legal Services) ↩
2. 42 U.S.C. § 3604, Fair Housing Act (Office of the Law Revision Counsel) ↩
3. C.R.S. § 24-34-502; Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act Part 5 Housing Practices (Colorado Civil Rights Division) ↩
4. 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., Fair Housing Act, Chapter 45 (Office of the Law Revision Counsel) ↩
5. Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015) ↩
6. Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc) ↩
7. 24 C.F.R. § 100.600 (harassment) and § 100.7 (liability), HUD (eCFR) ↩
8. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, RLUIPA (Office of the Law Revision Counsel) ↩
9. House Bill 20-1200 (2020), signed act (Colorado General Assembly) ↩
10. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-117; Application of CCIOA in HOA Communities (Colorado Law Summary, Office of Legislative Legal Services) ↩
11. House Bill 22-1137 (2022), Colorado General Assembly ↩
12. HB 20-1200 bill page, Colorado General Assembly ↩
13. House Bill 22-1139 (2022), Colorado General Assembly ↩
14. Senate Bill 24-134 (2024), Colorado General Assembly ↩
15. House Bill 24-1337 (2024), Colorado General Assembly ↩
16. Nevada Senate Bill 201 (2025), amending NRS Chapter 116 (Nevada Legislature) ↩
17. California Civil Code § 4706 (California Legislative Information) ↩
18. Connecticut General Statutes § 47-230a (Connecticut General Assembly) ↩
19. Florida Statutes § 718.113(6) (The Florida Senate) ↩
20. Illinois Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 605/18.4 (Illinois General Assembly) ↩
21. Rhode Island General Laws § 34-37-5.5 (Rhode Island General Assembly) ↩
22. Texas Property Code § 202.018 (Texas Statutes) ↩