Gay couples in a Texas restaurant

[Nobody]

Morals isn't bigotry.

That is certainly not true a lot of the time. There are countless acts deemed 'immoral' for no reason other than a bigotry towards unconventional practices, even when they are demonstrably harmless. Almost anyone would consider murder immoral, because it is obviously harmful. If you ask a person why they think homosexuality is immoral, they'll either resort to scripture, or suggest that it has some nonexistent negative effect on society which is almost always qualified by similar 'moral' bigotries (they's rooinin the sanktitty of marrige!! their kids will grow up and be fags!).

I don't care if it means I'm being 'intolerant'. I do not tolerate behavior which is intended to hurt or demean other people who have done nothing to deserve it.

I think you'd make a better point if you didn't disrespect the topic with such drivel as "rooinin sankitty" in your speech. It's isn't cool. It just shows you don't respect the dialog so how can you espouse respect for tolerance?

I think the later part of your declaration was superseded by the first. You don't care.
It seems like a double standard to claim you don't care about other peoples moral standards, while proclaiming to care about being tolerant.

Regardless, I would say others are just as entitled to say they don't have to meet anyone elses expectations when it comes to personal values or their own sense of morality.
Having morals that do not agree immorality is to be tolerated doesn't hurt others, nor does it demean others.
One does not have to agree everything is to be tolerated just so as to insure no one's feelings are hurt no matter what behaviors they engage in.

People have to agree to disagree. And people have to realize not everything is tolerable. Sex is not a civil right.
And when, as an example, homosexuals demand the right to get married and call their same sex unions a marriage, when affording them the opportunity to enter into a civil union that would entail being afforded the exact same government benefits as is afforded by the civil contract marriage straights enter into, and that is deemed by many homosexuals to be unacceptable, the tolerance factor is clearly one sided.

The United States code presently defines marriage as between that of one man and one woman. Religion and it's definitions are separate and have their understanding along that same line as well.

Homosexuality isn't new. There is hardly ever an account in history wherein homosexuality has been accepted as the norm in a society, save perhaps for ancient Greece. And they buggered animals , so their standards were nothing to uphold as that of the highest value back in the ancient times.

Civil rights are afforded all Americans at all times. What is at issue is the matter of sex, relationship by law that permits certain exclusive rights and privileges when contracted by government license, and procreation. Which can only be achieved through artificial/surrogate methods or via adoption, when speaking of homosexuals.

People have a right to opine about that. And it is a myth that homosexual relationship under civil contract does not affect society. If 'marriage' was so benign as all that to mean nothing, polygamy would be legal.
Certain religions espouse that as a god given right, and regardless of that it is illegal in all of the United States.
There's a reason for that. And what's interesting is there isn't a mass evolving movement that espouses tolerance for polygamy.

The present map of States that have gone so far as to amend their Constitutions so as to outlaw homosexual marriage and/or civil unions, speaks to the state of the union, sort of speak.

What is interesting when one takes a sober look at those statistics is, there's very little tolerance for the will of the people that let that to happen.

So in matters of tolerance it's elective, rather than compulsory.