tol·er·ance[tol-er-uhns] noun1.2.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
First we had the New Mexico photographer who was told by the NM Supreme Court that she would have to support same-sex marriage "as a price of citizenship". Even though same sex marriage isn't legal in New Mexico.
Then the baker in Oregon who was driven out of business (costing God alone known how many jobs, but eggs/omelets, nomesane?) and is facing "rehabilitation" (according to a City Council member) for not offering a "same-sex commitment ceremony" cake, even when such ceremonies are not recognized by the State of Oregon. No legal action will be taken against those militants who threatened her suppliers and other vendors (which are crimes, by the way), FOR THE TOLERANCE.
Now we have the city of San Antonio passing an ordinance that declares that anyone who opposes homosexuality isn't eligible for either applying for a city contract, but also banned for running for office (in, perhaps, an attempt to reverse this ordinance).
Never mind that there are entire religions that believe homosexuality is not just "wrong" but a sin. (Putting salt in your coffee is wrong, and killing your neighbor is a sin, just to make the distinction.) Never mind that religious expression is the VERY FIRST right protected in the Bill of Rights. Never mind that expressing an opinion about social and political issues is the second protection granted. Never mind that homosexuals have been granted protections and special treatment above and beyond mere "tolerance" in an attempt to "even the playing field".
This amounts to a religious test ("you are not allowed to apply for a job with or for the city if you actually believe what your religion says, unless your religion is The State" ), and may very well spark the reverse swing of the pendulum. This is active oppression of those who hold personal beliefs, regardless whether they have ever acted on those beliefs.
The problem is that there are a LOT of judges out there who would do everything they can to protect it, in the face of First Amendment suits. After all, citizens no longer have the right to sue their elected representatives in an attempt to force them to enforce the laws of the State. And, as I have already shown, the State has violated each of the first ten Amendments routinely and repeatedly.
But, by all means, let's add some more amendments to be ignored!