There was this one church who believed it was sinful for women to be like men. Therefore, the girls could only keep their hair long and weren't allowed to wear pants - they could only wear dresses. Also, those girls were expected to marry young and be a housewife and stay at home to raise kids while her husband went to work and brought home the bacon. For a woman to do anything besides those things could be considered an act of sin, since woman was designed by God to be a helpmate for man.
Naturally, this isn't the most enlightened of stances, even among mainstream American Christians. Feminists and even political centrists could easily argue that such a dogma served only to inhibit the freedoms and liberties of women through the use of religion.
So what does that means we should do? Does that mean that we should ban dresses and skirts because those are clothings that designed specifically for women, and by having fashions designed solely for women who separate them from men, which is an innate act of discrimination? So the state should force women to wear unisex clothing, like pants and shorts?
Or does that mean that because that religion demands women to be housewives and stay-at-home mothers that we should ban women from marrying, issue state-enforced birth-control, and use the government to mandate that they get a college education and enter the work force?
I don't believe in banning such things anywhere for any reason. However, neither do I believe in enforcing such things through the use of the government either. People should have the freedom of choice for themselves.
No government prevent a person from wearing something of religious significance to them. But neither should a government punish a person for not wearing something of religious significance to the government either.