Don't forget the paradox of the paradox of intolerance (a.k.a. the meta-paradox of intolerance) which states that Popper's paradox of intolerance is often cited by those seeking to justify their own intolerance, ironically identifying themselves as also among those whom the paradox of intolerance warns against.
(I jest but, in seriousness, always remember that Popper's paradox works as a justification for any side and any viewpoint, whether good or bad. That's why it's a weak argument.)
It's because tolerance is not what's actually being discussed. It's morality. No-one thinks we should tolerate rape or murder, or considers the locking in a box of those who commit those acts as being in any way intolerant, even though to a dictionary definition, it is.
It's just about changing morals, with the idea of tolerance as the vehicle that smoothed the way. All the dichotomies dissolve when things are seen for what they are.
Giving money to a private school that excludes gay people is far more of a choice than being a gay person. In this case by tolerating the intolerant you end up creating an inescapably intolerant society for gay people the sake of avoiding creating an escapable intolerant society for Christians. Nothing in the Bible says Thou must not let gay kids go to private school.
> In September, Cirne told employees that Beloved in Christ will aid victims of the wildfires that burned more than 1 million acres across Oregon.
He mentioned his personal, religious charity at work and targeted it at all employees as part of a fundraising effort (admittedly for a good cause in this case). At that point, it's not just outside-of-work.
Normalizing and accepting intolerant viewpoints is akin to a dictator winning a democratic election. It's how bad actors use the system they despise with the explicit intention of sabotage.