Exactly. As usual Katrin simply has no answer to the empirically observable point that religious morality means whatever some group of followers want it to mean.

If you want to hate on gays - god agrees with you. If you want to accept gays into the church - oh, look, god also agrees with you.

If you happen to be gay - well, you can probably guess.

(No wonder the Vatican is so confused.)

Given this is true, debates about oppression over choice of clothing are meaningless.

The whole point of religion is rhetorical - it's simply a ploy to make some argument about some moral position stickier and more persuasive.

And that's exactly why religions should be purely a private affair, and not a political or social one - because the mere act of claiming supernatural authority is inherently abusive and oppressive, irrespective of the position being argued.

When you do this you can no longer have a debate among human equals, because one party is claiming that their point of view is super-human, and you, as a mere human, have no valid opinion on it. (Who are you to argue with god, or the markets?)

Not only is this clearly nonsense, it's corrosive and poisonous nonsense, and an easy breeding ground for authoritarian thinking - which, by a remarkable coincidence, is something religions seem to gravitate to with depressing predictability.