If the laws to which this article refers are truly limited only to females, it has a good point, but if not, then she's just one more whiner. After all, I would imagine that if an actor would refuse to wear make-up, he would be in a position to be fired to a similar extent as the woman who work at Harrah's casino in Reno. Just because you may like to have your appearance in a certain way does not in any way mean that an employer has to allow that appearance to remain that way. After all, the employees are a reflection of the store.
And that whole business about presence being the same as absence is a load of something. The law must look at what it can restrict, not what it can allow. It doesn't say that these two things are the same, but that they are equivalent positions (eg both legal) under the law. If I run forwards, this is certainly different from me running backwards, but both positions are legal. This gives a measure of control to the business, but does not decide for the employees whether or not their appearance is more important than that job