No — it is a question of degree and NOT a false dichotomy.
Maybe not burkas per se but coverings as dictated by someone.
Burkas are his argument, merely taken the the only logical extreme.
“as dictated by someone.”
Who said there would be laws?
That is the false premise of liberals - like WE always make laws. THEY do that.
This is nothing to do about laws. It’s about societal norms and common decency. There used to be lots of that. Expectations. So what if our opinion is it is immoral and lewd? We have every right to express that, and try to change how things are done. But it has nothing to do with forcing anything by government.
That is the same kind of false premise liberals use - as if conservatives, e.g., are always making laws about morality. Rarely, do we. We make lots of statements and noise, but not laws.
The "appeal to extremes" is not a logical argument unless there are no parameters that prevent the extreme. Using your same logical fallacy, your opposition could argue that sanctioning erotic dancing by scantily class shapely beautiful women means you might as well proceed to public fornication. Granted, in both cases this is a possibility unless limits are expressed, which your opposing poster expressed, and more so when there is appeal to a sure defining moral standard, as i argued as being Scripture (and thus rejected clothing women in tents), without which standard you are like a country without a constitution and Bill of Rights.
Which rejection of Scripture is what moral libertines and liberals both have in common.