If man cited in 303 Creative case was never involved, should it have reached Supreme Court?

WASHINGTON D.C. (KRDO) -- The United States Supreme Court is facing scrutiny for ruling in favor of a Colorado website creator after the man cited in the case for requesting a same-sex wedding website said he never made a request.

The New Republic published an article Thursday after reaching out to the man referenced in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In it, they recall the conversation when they discovered the man in question was straight, has been married for 15 years, and had no idea his identity or name was being used as part of the case.

In a press conference on Friday following the ruling, 303 Creative Website Designer Lorie Smith and the group representing her, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), answered questions about the man and the request cited in the case.

"It's undisputed that the request was received. It was received by a third party, whether that was a troll and not a genuine request, or it was someone who was looking for that is really irrelevant to the case as well," said ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner.

Lorie Smith filed the initial lawsuit back in 2016, saying she wanted to expand her website design services to weddings, but claimed she was worried that Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law would force her to create work that went against her Christian beliefs.

Right after she filed the suit, her fears appeared to be founded after she received a request she said could compromise her morals.

In the Supreme Court case, her legal team cited a request she received from a gay man, asking that a website be built for his same-sex wedding.

Though the man, referenced as Stewart in the case, said this week that he never made a request for a wedding website, Waggoner argued on behalf of her client that it doesn't matter.

Smith's team argued that people don't have to wait to for the government to punish them to argue that a law is unjust.

But some, like local defense attorney Jeremy Loew, believe it does matter, it matters a lot.

Loew said this presents a large issue of whether Smith had the standing to bring this to court.

"To actually have a lawsuit before the Supreme Court, you must have standing, and standing essentially, you have been injured as a result of the actions of a law," said Loew.

So, if the request wasn't real, Loew said Smith cannot argue she was injured by the anti-discrimination law, and this case never should've gone before the Supreme Court.

Still, Loew said the burden of confirming the evidence presented in a case does not fall on the Supreme Court justices.

"They are provided information, and they rule based upon the information they're provided. They're not investigators," said Loew.

Essentially, Loew said even though the Colorado Attorney General argued that the request and case were made up, the Supreme Court had no way to prove that his argument was true.

Ultimately, they chose to make a ruling even if the situation was hypothetical.

There is no court above the Supreme Court and therefore no way to appeal this decision, so regardless of whether Lorie Smith had the standing to bring this lawsuit, this ruling is now the law of the land.