My friends and I were talking about three of the points you raised just a little while ago.
First, that while the wording of the Arizona law was ridiculously broad, it did have one limitation -- the person refusing service had to have "sincerely held religious beliefs" to justify refusal of service. Which of course means that atheists, having no "sincerely held religious beliefs," would be exempt from 'protection' under the proposed law.
Second, I said I didn't like the basic premise that the government could compel somebody (photographer, baker, etc) to act contrary to their beliefs or risk criminal charges, and pointed out that the happy couple getting married would probably be better off going with a baker, photographer, etc that wanted their business in the first place. My friend, having lived in some very small towns in the past, pointed out that there are plenty of places in the U.S. where there aren't alternate options. i.e., Only one or two wedding photographers in a reasonable driving radius, or an equally limited number of bakeries. If both of the wedding photographers and all three places that bake wedding cakes have owners of a similar mindset, what's one to do?
Third, having mentioned the prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus, you raise a different point. Various religions have prohibitions against LOTS of things, not just homosexuality. If the pious baker doesn't want to make a wedding cake for Tom and Gary, their sincerely-held religious beliefs should also prevent them from making cakes for people with tattoos, people who eat shellfish, people who've had heterosexual relations prior to marriage, married people who use birth control of any type, etc.
But it seems like the only moral objections we hear about in the news are to homosexuals.
This really is messy in a lot of ways.