Do you think that it would somehow be better if the beliefs of people with power were not questioned?
In practice, the examples aren't very good: John Derbyshire was writing controversial material on race for years before National Review decided some of his articles in other publications were damaging their own reputation, at which point he promptly got a job at another publication that saw his extreme racism as an asset; Eich's resignation was extremely unusual and has the obvious counterexample of Kim Davis' job being well protected even when her political stance meant refusing to fulfil some of its requirements, and I'm not convinced that senior executives sometimes quitting over embarrassing revelations about their private life is really a sign that their employability is conditional on them holding certain sets of political views.
But that tree was tolerant at the end. That is exactly what tolerance means. Thats a very important distinction to me, because while it's all the law or government can ask of people, it misses the point that we are supposed to love our neighbors. The tree didn't open it's heart to people of different races, it didn't realize that the world is better when we love each other. All it did was tolerate.