I agree that the laws in question are different, I would argue that the passing of those laws aren't independent events.

The laws share a similar motivation and as such aren't independent but here the core question is whether the government can forbid private businesses that operate publically from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

In a partisan environment where everyone is mindkilled most people have likely the same opinion on that question as the question about gay marriage but that doesn't make them the same question.

If I get treated differently at the door of a nightclub because of my gender, I don't think that's basis for suing the nightclub. On the other hand I expect to be treated by the government in a way that doesn't discriminate based on gender.

By muddling those issues together, you prevent rational political discourse.

Except that's just what we have here.

No. The law doesn't speak about baking cakes.

Laws as supposed to be written as simple as possible.

Writing a law that says (among others): "Public businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. The expectation are bakers that are asked to bake cakes for homosexual weddings."

That's crappy law making. If laws get written that way their complexity rises. Baking cakes for homosexual weddings isn't important enough to be written about in a law. On the other hand euthanasia is.

In case you think I'm arguing irrelevant technicality, the fact that most people don't understand that simple laws are good is on of the core reasons why we have so much complicated bureaucracy.

Nobody cares about low bureaucracy when debating how to solve ideological charged issues :(