It's a bit more complicated than that, they're suing to test the constitutionality of the law because it barred them from doing something they would've otherwis

It's a bit more complicated than that, they're suing to test the constitutionality of the law because it barred them from doing something they would've otherwise done: === https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis === Before implementing the notice, Smith discovered that such a notice would violate the Colorado anti-discrimination state laws that were amended in 2008, which prevents public businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as making statements to that effect. Smith, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, sued Colorado in 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law. The district court waited for the result of the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which dealt with the same anti-discrimination law. As Masterpiece was ruled in 2018 on more narrow procedural grounds, the district court ruled against Smith in 2019, as Colorado had yet to investigate Smith and thus there was no evidence that she had engaged in discrimination.[4][5] Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld the district court decision in a 2–1 ruling. In the majority ruling, the Tenth Circuit held the anti-discrimination law satisfied strict scrutiny under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, deepening a circuit split with decisions issued by the Arizona Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[6] Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented in the Tenth's decision, writing "the majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience."[3]