It seems to be more about commerce than speech.
The two are intertwined. The First Amendment applies to commercial speech as well as to private speech. The novel turn here is whether (a) being forced to include statements that one disagrees with on a product one is building constitutes forced speech, and (b) assuming arguendo it is "speech", whether the government can compel it.
It's a bit of a thorny issue, because the products on which these statements are being attached are bespoke, one of a kind creations, and not simply mass-produced fungible goods, so the end-result is more closely associated with the business that created them than would be the case, for example, if the product was just something stamped out in the millions by large industrial machinery.
On one end of the spectrum is the case where state law forced the producer to explicitly associate themselves with the statement being applied to the good in question, such as where the producer would be required to affirm the statement. That is forced speech and a law that did that would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
On the other end of the spectrum is the case where someone orders 1,000 golf-balls from titleist that will be private label (i.e., they won't come in titleist branded boxes or otherwise have the titleist logo on them) to be stamped with the offending statement. The golf balls are mass produced, with almost no human involvement, and certainly no direct creative involvement, and are fungible - any batch of balls will do, basically - and so that is probably not compelled speech.
But life is not binary, and there are a huge number of cases in the middle.
So, we'll see what the Court does when they are squarely faced with the issue without the ability to fob the decision off on some other ground.