It looks like a few more posts have happened since I was last here.
I'll skip the logic vs religion argument.
Someone asked for more information about my foster parent experience. I'll post it in another thread to keep this one from going into yet another topic.
Getting back to tolerance....
I think the problem is really very basic. If person A sees person B harming person C, is it OK for person A to interfere? What if persons B and C don't agree that any harm is being done? What if persons B and C are the same person, i.e. what if A sees B harming themself or about to harm themself? Again, what if B doesn't see things the same way? It's all about perspective. What A considers harm, B considers normal. If A allows B to continue without interference, then A is being tolerant. If A interferes, then A is not being tolerant.
Getting back to relative morality....
Someone mentioned that a person with relative morality doesn't really have any morality since they can change their views at any time in order to justify their actions. I would agree that anyone who would do that has no real sense of morality. They are engaged in non-rational decision making: making an emotional decision and then seeking evidence to justify their position.
I think it's important to have a sense of conviction about what is right and wrong - a sense of morality. But I think it's important that a sense of morality be based on principles. A set of rules for what is right and wrong that you can't rationally justify is just an arbitrary set of rules. And for the record, I don't consider any version of "because I said so" as a rational justification.