This is a controversial discussion for sure

Exactly..

A "free" society must prohibit intolerant behavior. However, any proscription against speech, except of course shouting fire in a crowded building and perhaps egregious profanity in the presence of minors, severely negates the freedom of said society. Freedom of speech is the foundation of freedom. Therefore, unless I'm missing something, I fundementaly disagree with this post. Even if Hitler himself was giving a speech today in the USA and someone throws rotten fruit at him, as hard as this may seem to many, it is the person throwing the fruit who is a greater threat to our freedom.

This was an argument I had in the Conservatist Atheist Group. They laughed at the idea of liberal being tolerant. As if being liberal means tolerating the intolerable such as genocide, pedophelia, sex trafficing, vivisection, factory farming, water & air pollution. If I was still a member I would have posted this. But they are the ilk that does tolerate such intolerable issues in the name of deregulating business, aryan superiority, cadaver consumption, pollution not in their back yard.

What a quandry...?

Unconditional tolerance cannot exist. Otherwise we would have to be tolerant towards murderers and child sex abusers. If something does no harm, then it should be met with tolerance. If something does harm, then it should be met with intolerance.

The conflict comes from differing perceptions of harm. Those who are intolerant of (for example) LGBT people, feel they are defending their way of life and moral values from harm. Those who oppose them feel they're defending the rights of LGBT people to harmlessly go about their business and relationships.