Discomfort is not unwelcomeness. What you should be looking for is a situation in which direct concerns of Catholics are getting shouted down - that does happen(in an existence-proof sense), but it's not nearly as common as an internal "rationale of oppression" used to escape responsibility and consequence for beliefs that are directly harmful to others. "Do not deny me my belief, critique is tyranny" is a very common theme to defend all forms of discrimination, both from the positive side of "I do not think I am doing wrong myself" and the negative of "I am justified because we already know they are evil."
You can still have schisms and nasty politics with a policy like this, since obviously the different sides of the discussion will value things unequally, but the goal is to at least maintain surface politeness and order so that small voices don't give up so quickly.
>Discomfort is not unwelcomeness
unwelcomeness is when a majority of people is making you feel uncomfortable. Does that mean it's only ok to express an opinion if it's unpopular or unanimous?
>Catholics are getting shouted down - that does happen(in an existence-proof sense), but it's not nearly as common
A catholic would point you to all those countries where catholics are getting killed daily for their opinion.
»"Do not deny me my belief, critique is tyranny" is a very common theme to defend all forms of discrimination
An equally common theme is "your opinion/behaviour is offensive and scandalous", but both are exactly the point I'm making, it should be possible to make statements critical to the system without being branded with a scarlett letter by some secret court working on anonymous tips.
>You can still have schisms and nasty politics with a policy like this
IMHO no, you can't, the Django CoC is too "feelings oriented", you can't objectively judge peoples feelings (especially on mailing lists and IRC) because it's internal unobservable state, besides I have learned that some people invented several terms [1] [2] [3] to redefine "surface politeness discussion" into harassment.
Furthermore it specifically says "In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop" which mean that even if you are making an argument that does not violate the CoC simply defending it if someone asks you to stop is a violation. It's simply impossible to enforce such rule equitably without every argument becoming a race to who can shout "mom!" first.
You can still have schisms and nasty politics with a policy like this, since obviously the different sides of the discussion will value things unequally, but the goal is to at least maintain surface politeness and order so that small voices don't give up so quickly.