Laurie smith, owner of 303 creative, a colorado-based website builder, poorn speaks to reporters earlier in the week outside the us supreme court in washington . Anna moneymaker/getty images hide caption Laurie smith, owner of 303 creative web development forms in colorado, is used in front of reporters in front of the us supreme court in washington on monday. On monday, the u.S. Supreme court heard more than two hours of arguments within a constitutional review of state public accommodation laws protecting same-sex couples from discrimination. Four years ago, the high court dismissed the issue in the game of a colorado baker who refused to make wedding dishes to order for same-sex couples. But on monday the question came back again. On the one hand, the state of colorado, which, like 29 other states, requires businesses that are open to the public to offer equal access to everyone, regardless of race , religion, sexual orientation and gender. On the other hand, there are business people who consider themselves artists and are not always willing to use their talents to express an idea they don't intend to. Order. Who is against same-sex marriage. “My priority is to create designs for weddings that are in line with my faith,” she says. She is suing colorado early because she believes the state’s public accommodations order violates her ability to freedom of speech. Questions from liberal judges In the supreme court on monday, justices elena kagan, sonia sotomayor and ketanji brown jackson viewed smith's planned website. , Which includes typical data on dates, hotel accommodations, marriage registrations, etc. So, since she provides such a site for mike and mary, kagan asked, why not use the same resource for mike and brand? »Attorney kristen wagoner, representing smith, said it would be an unconstitutional forced speech. “When you change those names,” she said, “you change the concept and the message.” Sotomayor inquired, which was repeated several times. “What about clients who don't believe in interracial marriages?” She wanted to know. On the contrary, there are business owners who say: “i'm not going to serve these people, because i'm not convinced that semi-legal and absolutely legal people should get married.” Is this allowed? Jackson asked about a hypothetical photo business recreating scenes of babies sitting on santa's lap at the mall. The project aims to take “nostalgic photographs with sepia colors that convey the atmosphere of the 1940s and 50s, but because “they intend to capture the feelings of a certain era, their policy is that only white children can be photographed with santa. She asked if this was acceptable. Lawyer wagoner evaded and evaded, never giving a sensible answer. Judge alito's hypothesis Judge samuel alito, in turn, asked if a jewish photographer should take pictures for the profile of a jewish client on ashleymadison.Com. For outsiders: ashleymadison.Com is a marketplace for married people who want to have an affair. Assuming something might violate the jewish photographer's belief in the sanctity of marriage, should the photographer take pictures? Alito also used jackson's question about santa claus, asking about a hypothetical black santa at the other end of the mall . If he doesn't want to be photographed with a kid wearing a ku klux klan costume, [should] this black santa have to get one?” All the judges insisted that both sides drew a boundary line. If the court decides that laurie smith should not provide her services at same-sex weddings, then what about the baker, jeweler, tailor, photographer and caterer? Colorado solicitor general eric olson said that a business can sell any service it wants, but that service must be available to everyone. The website may include christian bible passages, and the christmas shop is capable of selling christmas trees, but none of which is able to deny the market to jews or, in this case, same-sex couples, because it would be racially discriminatory or religious grounds. Status. Hypothetical hypotheses continued to arrive. Judge amy coney barrett asked about a newspaper that chose to dedicate its wedding section to same-sex couples only during gay pride month. Would this be illegal discrimination against heterosexual couples?