it happened a few years ago in Michigan

a pediatrician refused to treat the child of two lesbians; the state was okay with it; can't remember if the state medical association did anything though

This is the text of the bill as passed.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/161054.pdf

The major provisions:
A) Religious functionaries may not be required to conduct ceremonies, administer sacraments, or perform rites if that would conflict with their religion (this does not apply to public officials).
B) Any INDIVIDUAL cannot be forced by government to attend any rite or sacrament.
C) A business which operates on a Saturday or Sunday is required to make all reasonable accommodation for employees for whom that is a religious day.
D) Businesses may not be required by any state or local government to operate on Saturday or Sunday (or both).
E) Faith-based organizations (def. as church, assoc. of churches, religious school, etc) may not be required to rent property to anyone if it would be used for a purposed which violated a tenet of faith or belief, nor may they be forced to provide charitable, social or educational services to anyone if it would violate a tenet of faith or belief, UNLESS said organization is providing those services under contract from government.
F) No faith-based org may be required to hire an employee if doing so would violate a tenet of belief, but this is expressly limited by obligations in the GA Constitution, the United States Constitution and federal law. In other words, this does not change the employment law with respect to religious organizations, which allows non-employment of teaching/ministerial employees for reasons of faith, but not non-employment of non-religious duty staff (like janitor, cook, nurse, etc).

This is not a law that will change anything much. Under the US Constitution, federal law and federal cases, the government can't force a clergyman/minister to do anything religious. The government can require such a person to mow his lawn, or cause it to be mowed, but not to bless the mower. Same for individuals.

The only possible conflict remaining with federal law would be the rental provision, I think.

I'm a Christian, and to refuse to treat any patient, for any reason, based on race, color, religion, sexual orientation, eye color, whatever, is astoundingly unethical, and also un-Christian.

as doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, are they not?

Apparently this isn't really about doctors treating patients, from above posting, but still, the very idea of a doctor refusing needed treatment is very disturbing.

To the best of my ability I will not purchase products from those states.