[drewrv]

303 Creative was not prosecuted under Colorado's law. They were not even asked to create a wedding website for a gay couple: https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-...

In fact, there is no evidence they had ever built a wedding website: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/real-story-behin...

So, we have someone who has never suffered a harm from the law, was under no risk of prosecution, and who had never even had the opportunity to violate the law. If this person has standing, then standing is meaningless.

The fact that there's a blurb about it in a decision is irrelevant, does the court have a consistent philosophy on standing, or are they just winging it? It seems really obvious they're winging it.

[otterley]

The fact that they analyzed standing is very relevant from a legal and precedential standpoint. I’d like to see your legal analysis to see if you could do better.

[drewrv]

If their analysis is inconsistent and arbitrary then it’s worse than useless, it’s harmful.

It’s not hard to do better. The legal analysis of “I’m just doing what I want based on vibes” would be better, because at least it would be honest!