Every modern nation's conception of liberty differs. In no country does liberty mean that anything goes. And while many westerners (particularly Anglos) like to define liberty as "anything goes which doesn't negatively effect me", that only begs the question of where that line is to be drawn.
In France the pithy definition of political freedom is "liberty, equality, fraternity". Equality and fraternity are qualifiers on what liberty is supposed to mean, recognizing a collective responsibility component and thus helping to articulate where the line is to be drawn for when individual liberty conflicts with the long-term requirements safeguarding political liberty.
French laws don't ban Muslim dress, per se. They ban face coverings, which is only typical of some very conservative Arabic cultures. And they do so because a religious or cultural mandate that requires such dress is in direct opposition to the ideals of equality and fraternity, which are considered necessary for maintaining the liberty of the society as a whole.
We can disagree with that interpretation on many levels. But it's not illogical, per se. I don't doubt that the way it's been articulated and enforced has been corrupted by anti-Muslim and anti-Arabic animus. But it is what it is and fundamentally seems consonant with French political theory.
In the U.S. religious freedom is considered much more sacrosanct. In particular, Americans see safeguarding religious liberty as fundamental to political liberty; whereas I think the French notion is that safeguarding secularism is far more important. The reasons are historical and totally obvious--just reflect on what you learned about American and French political history in high school. In France the Catholic Church was one of the impediments to democracy. Whereas a large number of American colonists came here because of religious persecution abroad, and our political system evolved to protect religious denominations from the government and from each other.