What is realistically accomplished by such a thing? More imprisonment or death, I suppose. Protecting your religious and cultural values is a tough thing to do, and we're not doing it well enough in the west these days by my estimation, but God help me if I should ever start endorsing using the state as a cudgel against those who live in ways that I don't agree with. That's never been the way in my communion, even in the most obvious case of Orthodox Ethiopia, where (for instance) Roman Catholic missionaries were banned for some two centuries by Emperor Fasilides, who sought to reestablish the Orthodox Church as the Church of the empire after his predecessor Susenyos' disastrous attempt to force Catholicism upon the people, who by and large did not want it. The difference being that those who had converted to Catholicism and did not wish to return to Orthodoxy were not imprisoned, executed, or forced to return against their will. It's a different situation, to be sure, but I hope the point is clear: you cannot force someone to live in a manner other than how they wish by threat of law. Or, rather, plenty of people will go along to get along in such situations (see, e.g., non-Muslims in the MENA region), but this makes a mockery of the religious values and culture you are ostensibly trying to protect by legislating such things in the first place. This is why, for instance, in Muslim countries that enforce Ramadan fasting by law, there are all kinds of weird unintended consequences that seem like the opposite of what the pious would want (e.g., weight gain, food waste, etc.).
