SCOTUS Watch: What the Tastries Wedding-Cake Petition Could Mean for Florida Employers

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take up Cathy’s Creations, Inc. d/b/a Tastries Bakery v. Civil Rights Department to determine how far public-accommodation laws may compel a business to provide goods for a same-sex wedding when the owner claims a free-speech or free-exercise objection.

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act requires businesses to provide full and equal services without discrimination based on protected traits, including sexual orientation. In February 2025, the California Court of Appeals held that refusing to sell a predesigned, plain white, three-tier cake for a same-sex couple’s reception is intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act, that a referral to another bakery does not satisfy the statute’s full-and-equal access requirement, and that preparing and delivering that predesigned cake is not protected speech. The court also rejected the free-exercise defense.

Two Supreme Court decisions frame the First Amendment backdrop. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U.S. 638 (2018), the Court ruled narrowly for a baker based on government hostility to religion. Still, it did not resolve whether baking a wedding cake is a protected expression. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), the Court held that a web designer could not be compelled to create custom expressive content celebrating a same-sex wedding. These cases will inform any review here.

For Florida, the statewide public-accommodation provision in the Florida Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status, but not sexual orientation. Fla. Stat. § 760.08. Many local human rights ordinances extend protections to sexual orientation and gender identity. Florida also has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Fla. Stat. § 761.03, which applies strict scrutiny to state or local government actions that substantially burden religious exercise.

If the Supreme Court grants review and rules in favor of the baker on compelled speech, businesses offering custom, clearly expressive services could gain stronger First Amendment defenses when asked to create goods that convey a message with which they disagree. That logic would align with 303 Creative. Yet the California appellate decision emphasized that the requested cake here was predesigned, undecorated, and non-expressive, distinguishing it from bespoke, message-bearing work. Florida businesses should note this difference, as courts may treat off-the-shelf or generic products differently from custom expressive services.

For Florida employers, the statewide civil rights statute does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, many municipalities, such as Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Orlando, have local ordinances that do. In those jurisdictions, businesses are required to provide equal service to same-sex couples. If enforcement of such an ordinance conflicts with an owner’s religious beliefs, Florida RFRA could become relevant. Florida RFRA does not give businesses a blanket right to refuse service. Instead, it functions as a defense if a government enforcement action substantially burdens religious exercise. The statute requires the government to demonstrate that the enforcement serves a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving this goal. In practice, this means that the Florida RFRA is triggered when a local agency investigates or penalizes a refusal of service and the business asserts that compliance would violate its sincerely held religious beliefs.

Thus, while the nationwide headlines focus on compelled speech and free exercise under the U.S. Constitution, Florida employers must also account for the interplay of local nondiscrimination ordinances and Florida’s RFRA. Customer-service disputes can quickly overlap with employee-relations issues, particularly when staff raise requests for religious accommodations. Employers should be prepared to consistently navigate both obligations.

The Tastries petition presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to draw the line between commercial conduct subject to anti-discrimination laws and expressive services protected by the First Amendment. For Florida, the implications will vary depending on whether a business operates under a local ordinance covering sexual orientation. Florida RFRA may provide a defense when local enforcement substantially burdens religious exercise, but it does not erase equal-service obligations in jurisdictions with such protections. Employers should closely monitor the petition and be prepared to update their policies if the review is granted.

Action Steps for Florida Employers

• Identify the local human rights ordinances that apply to your business and confirm whether they include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

• Distinguish clearly between non-expressive goods and custom expressive services when setting service policies.

• Document criteria for handling religious accommodation requests from employees in customer-facing roles.

• Train managers and staff on equal-service obligations and escalation procedures.

• Review vendor and franchise agreements for consistency with nondiscrimination and accommodation policies.

• Monitor developments in the Tastries petition and be ready to adjust compliance strategies promptly.