There seems to be a lot of misinformation about this particular law flying around. The problem with gays being discriminated against in Indiana comes from sexual orientation not being a protected class there and the current political climate suggesting that this law was passed with some animus towards gays even though it doesn't really single them out. The law itself is an almost verbatim copy the federal version that was written by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) back in 1993 after a Native American was denied unemployment benefits when he was fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony.

As for your specific points:

1) A public accommodation (which a bakery is) can refuse service to anyone for any reason except on the basis of the customer's membership in a protected class. Being gay has never been a protected class in Indiana and recent interviews by the Governor suggest that's not likely to change anytime soon. The RFRA has no bearing on this issue. The bakery could refuse service before the law was passed and it still can.

2) Same as 1

3) Same as 1

4) In your hypothetical the pharmacy has not asserted any religious basis for its preference for prescriptions from an oncologist. The RFRA would have no bearing on this case and it would depend on whether requiring prescriptions from certain specialties is permitted by the pharmacy regulations of the state.

5) The geographic constraints don't matter.

6) Again, the law doesn't apply to this situation at all and the customer's situation is completely irrelevant.

7) Absolutely, that was precisely what the language of the act was designed to ensure. Not only that, but the state needs to accommodate the churches efforts to obtain and use peyote safely and with legal interference. See: Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal

8) This has not been tested directly, but provided the Rastafarians can demonstrate that they sincerely believe their religion commands them to consume LSD they would probably prevail in court.