Ultraviolet
Un no. The armed security guards evicted someone who was refusing to follow the venue's dress-code. Their faith was irrelevant. It's no different than if the "faithful" decided clothing is a mark of shame and went to Mass in the nude.

"Several faithful told Krdo.com that they consider armed guards in a church as inappropriate." ...proving just how stupid "the faithful" there truly are. They'…More
Un no. The armed security guards evicted someone who was refusing to follow the venue's dress-code. Their faith was irrelevant. It's no different than if the "faithful" decided clothing is a mark of shame and went to Mass in the nude.

"Several faithful told Krdo.com that they consider armed guards in a church as inappropriate." ...proving just how stupid "the faithful" there truly are. They'd certainly learn to appreciate armed guards AFTER some jihadist went on a rampage and killed a few of their friends and family during Mass

Dress codes are old, old news, even pre-Vatican II news.
occasnltrvlr
You actually equate rules concerning the wearing of masks with dress codes?!?
Ave Crux
Sorry, you drank the koolaid
Ultraviolet
No @Ave Crux you drank the Self-Entitlement Soda. @occasnltrvlr: if you question my claim, then please show how a venue's dress code requiring everyone wear shoes and a shirt is somehow DIFFERENT than the same venue requiring everyone to wear a mask. Yes, it's a dress code. A new dress code, but still a dress code.

You perceive it to be somehow different because it's new for you and that's …More
No @Ave Crux you drank the Self-Entitlement Soda. @occasnltrvlr: if you question my claim, then please show how a venue's dress code requiring everyone wear shoes and a shirt is somehow DIFFERENT than the same venue requiring everyone to wear a mask. Yes, it's a dress code. A new dress code, but still a dress code.

You perceive it to be somehow different because it's new for you and that's partly because you're clearly unfamiliar with (charity compelled me not to use the phrase "ignorant of") similar introductions. The "shirt and shoes" dress codes became widespread during the 1960s as a direct reaction to the hippies who found both to be just as "unreasonable" as people find masks today.

A more recent dress-code introduction (before masks) was the "lower your hoodie" rule. (pic related). This became necessary since criminals would use their hoods to conceal their features during robberies and other crimes..
occasnltrvlr
The difference comes from the dictionary. According to mine, "dress" in the context of a "dress code" pertains to clothing. I find it absurd that one would consider a protective mask "clothing".

While you're thumbing through your dictionary for "clothing" in order to author another pointless retort, stop by the "H's" for "humility".
Ultraviolet
According to "mine"? Maybe you should first swing by the "C's" for "citation". :D The possessive "mine" makes for a non-existent cite. When you're done with that, go hit the "F's" for Fallacy.

" I find it absurd that one would consider a protective mask "clothing"."

Your Fallacy Is: Argument From Incredulity . Just because YOU find something "absurd" does not make the premise false.

...and …More
According to "mine"? Maybe you should first swing by the "C's" for "citation". :D The possessive "mine" makes for a non-existent cite. When you're done with that, go hit the "F's" for Fallacy.

" I find it absurd that one would consider a protective mask "clothing"."

Your Fallacy Is: Argument From Incredulity . Just because YOU find something "absurd" does not make the premise false.

...and you're still wrong. From Wiki.."Cloth face masks may also be worn as a piece of apparel."

.
..and then let's stroll on over to Merriam-Webster's "A" for "apparel"
definition 1: :"personal attire : clothing of a particular kind"

So the difference doesn't come from the dictionary because the dictionary flat-out contradicts you. No, the difference comes from your intellectual arrogance and presumption, nothing more.

...made all the worse since now you've also demonstrated you're a sloppy debator. :D

...and no, putting someone like you in your place around here is never "pointless". ;-)
Ave Crux
@Ultraviolet Oh, now our basic human liberties to reject a completely false medical narrative and live intelligently instead of salvishly is "self-entitlement". Well, the Constitution of the United States, not to mention God Himself by design in giving us free will, says you are wrong.
Ultraviolet
Clearly you don't know the first thing about Constitutional law much less Catholic theology. :D Show where the Constitution prohibits a the existence of a dress code. Better still, cite the case law where this issue was addressed by the US Supreme Court.

This is me telling you to put up or shut up. Having seen your kind on GTV far too often, you'll do neither and ramble on with further unsupport…More
Clearly you don't know the first thing about Constitutional law much less Catholic theology. :D Show where the Constitution prohibits a the existence of a dress code. Better still, cite the case law where this issue was addressed by the US Supreme Court.

This is me telling you to put up or shut up. Having seen your kind on GTV far too often, you'll do neither and ramble on with further unsupported claims and errors.

As for the Almighty. You don't speak for Him. God is not imposing a dress code, various public venues are. Our "free will" grants us the right to either follow them while visiting or not visit at all.

Did you just suddenly notice that stores have been requiring people to wear shirts and shoes for literally the last half a century or so?
Our Lady of Sorrows
In Scotland, UK, Layman told no mask no sacraments
catholictruthblog.com/…an-obey-or-forfeit-sacraments/ and comments