In practice, people generally tend to act on their beliefs so the distinction you're drawing is kind of moot. For sure it is possible to argue things from a purely intellectual or academic perspective.
Not entirely, people act according to the law as well. I’m sure there was a situation where you were thinking that a law didn’t make sense, but you acted accordingly anyways. And this law was put in place because two people had a problem with each other which had to be resolved. I’m just arguing we don’t need tolerance, because we have a mechanism in place, called the state, or the law, which resolves issues and not just ignores them, as tolerance does.