The court's finding is, of course, erroneous, because it is not the free speech clause of the First Amendment, but the free exercise of religion clause that is relevant here. The Latin Church in their 1962 Missal published a list of "9 Ways of Being an Accessory to Another's Sin":
I. By counsel
II. By command
III. By consent
IV. By provocation
V. By praise or flattery
VI. By concealment
VII. By partaking
VIII. By silence
IX. By defense of the ill done
Providing floral arrangements, photography and other services for pay to the purported weddings of sodomites partakes of V and VII, and if done without objection of VIII.
Now the florists in question have probably been protestants, rather than Latins, but they intuitively understand this, and the state requirement that they participate in the sin of others is a plain violation of their religiously informed conscience.
It is the same refusal to participate in the sin of another that made the Obama administration's "accommodation" of the Little Sisters of the Poor a continued violation of the First Amendment, since it demanded of Latin Christians that they participate in what they regard as the sin of contraception by consent.