Based on just the article linked, it sounds more like they're prohibiting the use of publicly owned property or public funding to enable religious expression. In the context of a French legal tradition I don't really see how prohibiting the use of public property in religious expression is the same as banning expression generally except in private. I think conflating the two is a bit of a tortured analogy grounded in American legal thought, although I do agree that it seems motivated, at least in large part, by Islamophobia.

It probably pertains to public (government) places. Like public schools and such. At least thats how it’s been viewed in America.

And don’t be silly, you know there is a difference between different kinds of speech. Thats how we also know the difference between hate speech, threats, verbal abuse, and profane speech and normal speech. Sure, a really dense lawyer can argue all day about the nuances of it, but a jury of peers or a society at large can come to a consensus of what is what.

if I pray to

Yes.

Adam was an ape.