One should always imagine the worst case when writing good laws. Unfortunately, we all know this law is not meant to be good, it's meant to be a wedge.
[It is deeply weird how uncurious the comments on this particular article are.]
"i have a persistent cough and need a check up."
"sorry, i'm going to deny you a routine check up based on my belief that homosexuality is a sin. providing this procedure to you would be tacit support of homosexuality."
It's not actually true though.
Argue about reality, not your personal boogeyman.
(g) “Health care service” means medical research, medical 98 procedures, or medical services, including, but not limited to, 99 testing; diagnosis; referral; dispensing or administering any 100 drug, medication, or device; psychological therapy or 101 counseling; research; therapy; recordmaking procedures; set up 102 or performance of a surgery or procedure; or any other care or 103 services performed or provided by any health care provider. 104 (h) “Participate” or “participation” means to pay for or 105 take part in any way in providing or facilitating any health 106 care service or any part of such service.
furthermore:
(5) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—A health care provider or 195 health care payor may not be held civilly liable solely for 196 declining to participate in or pay for a health care service on 197 the basis of a conscience-based objection.
meaning, a secretary in a doctor's office can prevent a gay person from making an appointment for any "procedure" at all because doing so would be facilitating a health care service that they personally object to.
here's the bill text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/.... it's quite short, you should read it.
Things that can go very wrong, but which in practice we may expect to be extremely rare are not necessarily large problems.
Notice how amendments to protect sexual orientation were rejected; that is very much a "worst case" (and statistically significant) that could have been easily avoided, bringing no ill-effects, additional ambiguity or implementation costs. Still, the legislator explicitly decided that case will fit in the law.