>>>>Personally, I do not think that this is very tolerant.
>>
>>By definition, if I say that I'm more tolerant than someone, I'm intolerant in that context.
>
>Here's my measuring stick for tolerance - and I'll use the recent example of Memories Pizza in Indiana. This, in microcosm, is the quintessential hypocrisy of those who boast a little too loudly about being tolerant.
>
>There is a potential "right to be wrong". I might think that a pizza place would be wrong if they refused to cater an LGBT wedding (I actually don't think they'd necessarily be wrong, but let's suppose I think they're wrong). I should show some level of respect that they have a right to be wrong, where that level is commensurate with the gravity of the topic. The reactions to Memories Pizza (including criminal reactions) are some of the worst and ugliest reactions I've seen - all because some report decided to bait the pizza shop with a theoretical question - and they are being done in the name of "tolerance".
>
>Now, if we're talking about a doctor refusing to treat a person, that's a far different story.

I read something about Indiana and religion in a headline in the NYT and skipped over it.
What happens in Indiana generally means very little to me and people's opinions about religion in Indiana mean even less.

I realize that's a flip reply but if people on either side of these non-issues would just close their ears, most of them would go away after a few hours.
As you say, people do criminal things over this nonsense while serious issues go unattended.

John Burns recently retired after a 40 year career at the NYT. During his career, he covered several wars and most important foreign conflicts as a lead correspondent. Like many others he was dead wrong about Iraq, but was one of the first to admit it.
He wrote a "summing up" column as a last hurrah and his key takeaway was that the most dangerous people in the world are ideologues - no matter what the ideology.
Anything can be justified, he said, once you make ideas more important than individuals.

That sounds applicable here.