Not tolerating someone you view as intolerant makes you intolerant. That ends with everyone being intolerant which is where we are now as a society. That never ends well either.
Tolerating people who may not tolerate you allows you to raise above the situation. If you are tolerate to any idea and you see a red ball and Jim says the ball is yellow that doesn't change your opinion on the color. It allows you to maintain your viewpoint and allow others that may be different and incorrect in your view. Not allowing that would mean trying to convince Jim he is wrong or removing Jim from my circle.
Can't we let people hold views we deem incorrect ourselves?
Is anyone claiming people cannot hold differing views?
People can choose to not work or associate with others based on their views. We still defend their right to hold their views, just not the privilege of our company. This is technically intolerant. Still, even the law does not tolerate screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
In practice absolute tolerance will yield power to whomever shouts the loudest, or is the strongest, because it removes the right to not associate. (For fear of being called intolerant, on a technicality.)
> even the law does not tolerate screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater
That is not and has never been the law of the land. The quote comes from the dicta (commentary), not holding (ruling), of a case that prevented people from distributing flyers that opposed conscription into World War I. And that case was also eventually overturned.
Hair splitting. My point is there are limits to even the law's tolerance of speech: extortion, threats, defamation, etc.
Regardless of the legal definitions, if someone does falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded place they'll experience unpleasant consequences. Similarly if they proclaim their hatred of group X or civil right Y at job onboarding then they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves escorted out.
