Maximizing tolerance is a poor moral framework. All societies and people differentiate behavior last between tolerable and intolerable. As a culture, there is

Maximizing tolerance is a poor moral framework. All societies and people differentiate behavior last between tolerable and intolerable. As a culture, there is pretty much universal agreement that murder is intolerable. There are however, differences between societies as to what is considered tolerable. The US considers making fun of deities tolerable, while in other societies blasphemy is intolerable and punishable by death. Toleration can also evolve. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, explicit racial discrimation and segregation was considered tolerable. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we have signaled that that behavior is intolerable. In addition, toleration has a pragmatic aspect. You may believe a behavior to be wrong, but it is not worth going to all out war over. For example, prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, Catholic principalities thought that their Protestant counterparts were intolerable and vice versa. However, after the 30 years war, while both Catholics and Protestants may not have liked each other, but decided that religious war between states was not worth it. At the extreme end, toleration is deciding what behaviors that you do not approve of are worth killing and being killed over, and which are not. Less extreme are deciding which behaviors you do not approve of are worth losing family, friendship, or business over. Toleration is by definition the tension between moral purity and inclusiveness. If we view it like then we can more logically talk about where the line between tolerable and intolerable should be, rather than both side putting forward sophist arguments why their opponent is intolerant and thus should not be tolerated.