The tolerant left strikes again
Boycotting companies and pressuring businesses to not work with organisations politically incompatible to your own views is not exactly a new concept. For example, there are currently calls from the right to boycott Starbucks because they intend to hire refugees. Not long ago there was a campaign to boycott Star Wars: Rogue One. Suggesting that the left shouldn't be doing this because they are "tolerant" doesn't really make sense.
If you want to wear the label "tolerant" you have to tolerate. If you don't want to wear it, well, you still have to tolerate, because that's what civilised people do, but if you don't, at least you're not a hypocrite.
They're in direct competition with each other. It shouldn't surprise anyone when people take a side. When people on the left describe themselves as "tolerant" it's because they are typically tolerant of more individual things, not because their tolerance is equally spread among all things.
showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.
You don't get to pick and choose individual things to be tolerant of, you don't get to pick a side and then not be tolerant of the other side, that's just not tolerance.
(What you can to, is to pick one side and then be tolerant, to show willingness to accept the existence of the other side, while seeking to change minds on the other side)
As far as I can tell, it's a label applied by the right to the left to make the left feel guilty. (And that tactic works, is the sad thing.)
If you Google 'tolerant left', you'll find only right-wing folks upset at the left's intolerance. But did the left ever say they wanted to be tolerant?
But for the purposes of this particular thread, the GGP said the left are tolerant, and the GP accepted that premise.
I'll gladly join the right, then. I want common-sense economic policies that inspire growth, not identity politics that keeps people out of my country depending on where they were born. I want limited government that doesn't regulate which bathroom you're in or what medical advice your doctor can give you. I want laissez-faire capitalism, not artificial tariffs on guacamole because big government wants money for a public works project that no business would find profitable to build. I want my city's mayor to be able to say that policing is better when we apply local policy to handling undocumented immigrants, without the federal government overruling us. I go to a church every Sunday where my male pastor is married to another male pastor of another congregation, and I want the state not to tell them that their marriage is invalid. I want a country with law and order, where police officers listen to the courts, not to the president. I want Russia to stop occupying Crimea and invading other former USSR land, because I want America to have won the cold war. And yes, I want the surveillance state that Obama set up to be shut down.
Now can I be intolerant of the destruction of our country at the hands of social justice warrior Steve Bannon and identity politician Peter Thiel?
You should learn a bit more about how our legal system works. Separation of powers means the Judicial branch can't have control over an executive power like policing.