I'd also like to point out that first, the issue goes beyond just the statement supporting traditional family, and second that the right to free speech does not relieve anyone of the repercussions of using that free speech. Tolerance of the right to think what he wants is not the same as allowing him to attempt to enforce that belief on anyone else through lobbying, work practice, or even public speech. Because of this, it is not intolerant to oppose a practice that limits civil liberty in the way that it is to attempt to impose a limit (or prevent a lifting of a limitation) of a civil liberty. Otherwise, we would be intolerant not to let a man declare himself the dictator of the world and remove all civil liberty. Do you see the distinction?