[FireBeyond]

You should read this: https://newrepublic.com/post/173675/supreme-court-just-used-...

> Puzzlingly, before she actually filed the first suit in 2016, Smith had apparently never designed a wedding website. Even weirder: She had never apparently been asked to provide services to a same-sex couple up to that point either.

And the customer who "requested" the site was fake, too:

> But after The New Republic reached out to Stewart directly—his contact information was readily accessible in court documents—the story fell apart: He said he had never submitted the form; he said TNR’s call was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

[hiatus]

That whole case seems like a mess.

> It was later discovered by The New Republic that Smith had made a wedding website for a heterosexual couple in 2015, which had been removed from her business's profile prior to her filing the case but remained visible in the Wayback Machine archives

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/25/lgbtq-rights-sup...

[leereeves]

Of course it was removed from her business's profile. Under Colorado law she wasn't allowed to offer to create any wedding sites unless she was willing to create LGBT wedding sites.

She wasn't, so she removed references to wedding sites. Why do you find that strange?