Well, yes. Although, the case did not in fact center around that request for service. The web-site designer’s lawyers didn’t add that as supporting information to their brief until after they filed the case, and the majority decision doesn’t turn on it. It’s highly unlikely that plaintiff’s lawyers or the plaintiff invented the request. It was too easy to discover that the request was not made by the person who identified himself in the request. What’s bizarre is that journalists didn’t discover it early. But if they had, it wouldn’t have mattered from a legal point of view.

Also, seeking relief for some future action made probable by a law the plaintiff believes is an unconstitutional infringement is somewhat unusual. It is not unheard of, though. Courts do take cases like that now and then.

I agree with the you that the justices are being disingenuous and even hypocritical, but not answering hypothetical questions at a Senate hearing is not he same thing as accepting a case based on infringement of civil liberties that are in some sense hypothetical.

The plaintiff claimed her injuries were not hypothetical, that she wished to market her services with the disclaimer that she will not serve same-sex couples. She claimed that doing so would be illegal under Colorado law and that she was therefore being actually and actively injured.

I don’t agree with the majority’s decision; I’m just noting that the “hypothetical” argument and the phantom request are not the slam dunk issues many people think they are.