Then you have a discussion about whether that is right or wrong, instead of having a discussion about how recursively meta you can go with "intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of ...".
Call it the "no recursion" rule.
Case in point:
The baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of gays. That is unjustified and wrong.
The gay couple who sues the baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of intolerance. That is justified and right.
The baker is unjustified and wrong to complain about the gay couple's intolerance of his intolerance, because he was unjustifiably intolerant himself, first.
Ok, let me be facetious. Take the baker situation and push it to full overdrive.
Let's say the baker was a victim of sexual abuse and the client was asking to bake a cake rape-themed. (Not in support, you can suppose it was a replica for a documentary let's say). The baker refuses, the client sues, who is the first intolerant?
Another case, a client enter the shop of a muslim baker and asks for a depiction of Allah on a cake. Who is the first intolerant?
Maybe you have answer for all such situations, but how confident are you that a majority agrees in all cases?
I think both these cases are fundamentally different -- the baker can refuse to bake a certain type of cake, on the grounds of religious expression clashing with the cake he is making. However, it's different if he refuses service on the grounds of the type of people he is making the cake for.
and in the actual case the baker refused to write a message on the cake. he was fine with the clients and with the cake.
He only objected to a custom message defying his belief. There are good arguments on both sides. (my stance is sort of about scale as in if he had enough employees to delegate or he was the only cake-maker there)
