Ignoring the rather silly trolling, I have questions:

And answers ye shall have!

Although the courts do not answer hypothetical statements, neither do they require that a party actually expose themselves to criminal or other sanctions in order to gain Article III standing to challenge a state regulatory or enforcement regime. As long as they can demonstrate that they intend to engage in specific behavior, that the specific behavior would contradict the state's proscriptions, and that there is a "credible threat" of prosecution if they do so, they have sufficient standing to challenge the Constitutionality of that statute. This "credible threat" standard was elaborated in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (where SCOTUS unanimously struck down Ohio's prohibition on false statements in a campaign):

supreme.justia.com: PDF document

So the plaintiff sought an injunction against Colorado against enforcement of the statute against them. The parties stipulated to some of the facts relevant to standing (such as that Plaintiff genuinely intended to establish a wedding website service), but disagreed as to whether there was an actual threat of enforcement against her. When the 10th Circuit ruled on standing, it found that there was a sufficiently material likelihood that: i) at some point someone would attempt to hire her services for a same-sex wedding; ii) she would refuse; and iii) the state would enforce. Because they accepted the Plaintiff's arguments on standing in the abstract (rather than relying on evidence of a specific request for services), that element was never part of the 10th's decision, and not germane to the SCOTUS review. Hence, irrelevant to the Court's disposition.

Links to the opinions by the Tenth and SCOTUS below:

law.justia.com - Appellate courts
supremecourt.gov: PDF document