According to LaBarbera, we should be tolerant of opposing points of view

In reference to hate monger Scott Lively, Pete writes "Will liberal elites and the media start holding pro-homosexuality activists accountable for their intolerance of opposing views?"  First of all, neither Lively nor LaBarbera have opposing views. They don't even have a different perspective. A religious belief that the Bible, as the inerrant word of God, should control civil law is not a point of view. Suggesting otherwise is intellectually dishonest. So yes     I am intolerant.

• I am intolerant of people who claim that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution does not say precisely what it says.
• I am intolerant of people who insist, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we are a Christian nation.
• I am intolerant of incurious people who cannot think beyond ancient texts that are fraught with contradictions.
• I am intolerant of people who believe that those same ancient texts nullify a great deal of modern science.
• I am intolerant of people who hate LGBT people as they profess their love.
• I am intolerant of people who seek to export their anti-gay hate to less developed countries.

Ultimately, I am intolerant of those who would suggest that anti-gay imbecility is an "opposing point of view" worthy of debate or consideration.

I have seen similar argument before. There is an "opposing point of view" that Jews control the media or that blacks are inferior. Should we be more tolerant of that tripe?