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.