It's no surprise that people were upset.
And, referencing your other post, I don't think the scenario in seventeenth century England is comparable to third century Rome. The Roman pantheon was already on the downswing, allowing a priest of Elagabalus to become emperor. A century later Constantine would make a similar move, leading to the still dominant Christianity. Had Heliogabalus been a competent man the move may have been a huge success.
Finally, the personal attacks aren't necessary.
It tells us that Romans disapproved of messing with food almost as much as with religion.
Even today it's not that odd to have gold foil in food.
Also a documented kind of bread in Rome was made with clay.
Let's say that you're an English king in the year 1680. You're openly Catholic; and for that, you get deposed. From our moral opinion in the year 2022, that king did nothing wrong. From a political point of view though, he was terrible. And his terribleness was caused by him being an openly Catholic king in England in the year 1680. It was the worst thing he did politically because it ended his political career.
The debauches sound wholly fabricated. I don't know why historians imagine they can pick out anything true. Even if an appointed official's name is corroborated somehow, there seems no reason to believe whatever was written about him or about why he was appointed.
We can be fairly sure Elagabalus was not well-liked by the literate class, and we can see what sort of activities they thought people would or ought not approve of.
We see similar behavior by historians on whether Jesus ever existed as a physical person. Almost all received documentary evidence is either obvious fabrication from often centuries later, or (e.g. in Pliny) acknowledged hearsay. The overwhelming majority of material represented as "early church", on any aspect, is clumsily forged.
The star exhibit supporting existence is a single paragraph in Josephus that every historian agrees was at least clumsily doctored by apologists. Many earnestly believe they can pick out bits of it not doctored, but the whole passage it appears in reads better with it omitted entirely. The most favorable judgment of it that can be supported is that nobody can prove none of it was in the original manuscript, and the "reconstructed" version reads a lot like Josephus.
There is no information to suggest why it would have been thought necessary to corrupt the original text, if it existed and read as "reconstructed". Statistically, the fraction of historians doubting existence is monotonically increasing, with no change in the evidence. That is actually progress.
Seems plausible to me. If you allow a horny 14 year old boy to get anything he wants, this is what happens. Any system that enables this to happen though is stupid.