Jesus Fucking Christ
I live in the least tolerant city I've ever lived (the Bay Area). And I've lived in Ohio, Illinois, Texas, California, went to school in NYC, and so on.
Tolerance isn't how you treat people you agree with, it's how you treat people you disagree with. And in California you can look at how they treat smokers, gun-owners, people informed on Climate Change, the religious, social conservatives, and so on, to see a contemptuous and intolerant and condescending attitude, that's hyper-sensitive towards you reflecting a fraction of that back.
Progressives/Dems like causes like defending gays... to the point where if you disagree with gay marriage and just don't want to support them by baking a cake, then you're a homophobe that belongs fined out of business or in prison. (Just don't try to apply those morals back. Not selling a guns or cigarettes to legal adults who wants them isn't a hate crime, nor does it make the person a bigot for refusing to, because there's no objective standards for behavior.) They know bigots when they see them, and they only look like Republicans.
Look at how they treat people informed on Climate change who don't regurgitate mistruths about Hurricane's, Droughts, Storms, or other things being caused by Global Warming? They are attacked as heretics and science deniers. Never mind whether they are qualified on the topic and more informed than their accusers. They know science deniers and they look like anyone who disagrees with a Democrat talking point.
They like seeing themselves and bohemian, sexually liberated, and other issues that the Frankfurt school convinced them that they were. So if you question whether assless chaps, and dry humping in a public place as improper etiquette, you'll be attacked for your priggish nature. They generally don't like being pinned down to moral consistency (that comes with organized religion), but they sure want to force feed their crass behavior on you, then get offended that you might be offended by it. Just like their hate codes in the colleges they never grew out of. So those that would try to define objective moral standards (like a Church) for them, are evil. But if you don't comply with their subjective moral standards (enacted like a cult), then you're evil.
The other day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) basically told a Catholic nominee that he wasn't qualified by nature of his beliefs.  This broad brushing others to fail their litmus tests (while giving their own side a pass for worse is typical of vocal progressives.
Dems (as a gross overgeneralization) love abortion and hate anyone telling them there's moral consequences:
- If you believe in unfettered abortion (and paying people to have them), then you're a good person. Like Pelosi.
- If you believe in any constraints, or that the government shouldn't subsidize them, then you're a bad person, and not qualified for office (by basis of a religion that they both proclaim to hold, and condemn for their beliefs).
- If you have your own litmus tests (and judge them, like they judge others), and you think that anyone who would murder a full term (viable) baby for their own convenience, isn't really a moral person, they get livid -- and label you a hater. How DARE you do it back?
So religion is on the wrong side of many issues for them. Thus, many of them (politicians, media voices and just democrat activists on FB) are so busy trashing religious people and religious beliefs, that it's too easy to confuse all that hate, with tolerance. Especially when their own side either nods or says little against such behavior.
Now there are theoretical moderates on the left. I even know a handful. But they're not the gross majority of the vocal ones. (Their idols, speakers, or politicians). So it's the 90%, that we hear about, that give the rest a bad name.
One of the many examples I'm thinking of things like the Hunky Jesus Contest... where gay men (and Women) dress up like Jesus and do the most irreverent and insulting things they can to mock religion. (The winner a few years back, was Jesus look-alike sodomizing a Jesus Mannequin and was named, "Jesus fucking Christ").
This is Nancy Pelosi's base.
The point isn't that the gays (or pride, etc) can't be fun. They're a blast, and I've seen many a parade, and have gay friends and family. And sometimes a joke is just a joke. So I wouldn't try to repress their expression or beliefs. Just don't try to sell me that their mountains of hate, intolerance or scorn on anything or anyone who doesn't think like them is "tolerance", or sensitive. And they're often a bunch of thin skinned hypocrites, that will scream the loudest if you treat them with 1/0th the disrespect that they treat the other side with regularly.
Using a term accurately like "homosexual", or being politely against an issue like gay-marriage is immediately and viciously derided as ignorant bigotry and hate (homophobia). But saying far worse about the religious people is not fathomed as wrong or religiophobia.
Tell me again how tolerant and respectful the Democrats are. Because where democrats rule an area, I've seen far more openly rude/crass/contemptable behavior towards those they disagree with than in any bible belt or religious areas of the country have towards the rest. The comments about the "clingers" or the "deplorable's" isn't just from their politicians -- it's widely spoken to anyone they assume is like them. Their hate is far open to see than any racism in the south. But since they don't judge themselves by the same yardstick, they just mock the other side for their politically incorrect insensitivity, without getting on iota or irony in that.
So Hunky Jesus is the perfect metaphor for the tolerance of the left: they want to be free to deride others for their beliefs. But if you dressed up in blackface or mocked gays or drag queens, they'd absolutely lose their nut if anyone reflects their impolite insensitivity back at them.
- Religion as a litmus test: