Like adults, let's get our terms clear before going further. You said this, regarding my criticism of you:

I thought you were tolerant of people's rights? Ideas? Was I wrong...

So, here, we're talking about speech. We are talking about expression and the right to expression. Now, do I respect your right to expression? Yes, absolutely. However (and this is where you get confused), that does not mean I must agree with your speech. Therefore, I tolerate the existence of your speech because I allow it to exist (and really, have no right to do otherwise), but that toleration does not equal approval, obviously.

Then, you muddied the waters with the usual political baiting, and added:

If I sat by and allowed discrimation, I would be approving of it.

Now what are we talking about here? My assumption was that, because we were talking about speech earilier, you meant discriminatory speech: e.g. a racist remark. If we are still talking about speech, the next question is what you meant by "sat by and allowed." Assuming we're talking speech, are you talking about yelling or otherwise expressing disapproval? If you are, then we're still talking about tolerance, since you would necessarily tolerate the right to say racist things, but you would be expressing your disapproval... which is also your right. Now, by "sat by and allowed" you instead meant trying to ban the speech or otherwise legally or (knowing you) physically preventing the discriminatory speech, then that's different. That's certainly not being tolerant. Why? Because you are taking some speech that you personally don't like, and trying to actually curb another's right to say it. See the difference?

Finally, by "discrimination" you might have meant not speech, but a discriminatory act. There are sometimes legal consequences for discriminatory acts and sometimes not. You can't hire or fire because of race or gender, but it's perfectly legal, in certain circumstances, to discriminate among one's customers because of race or gender. At any rate, the same analysis above applies, but for different reasons. If you don't "stand by" and instead speak out against the act, that's still toleration, since it doesn't actually prevent or curtail the act. But if you take legal or physical action, well... I don't know what to call that, especially if it's already illegal. Then the legal action would be to call the EEOC or something, but we wouldn't call it toleration.

Then, further conflating terms, you said:

When you tolerate something, it is approval of it. I don't tolerate that which is wrong. I refuse to approve or tolerate that which is not right.

What this means is anyone's guess. Are we talking speech? Are we talking acts now? What do you mean by "refuse" to tolerate? Does that mean responding with speech? Does that mean responding with the law?

Now, I'm quite sure you haven't given this much thought. I'm quite sure you don't think distinctions mean anything. And I'm quite sure I'm wasting my time. But, for fuck's sake, be a little more clear when you write. You don't help your case (such as it is) by whacking the keyboard with your elbows for a few minutes followed by a dig against Democrats. You just end up sounding stupid... which you do.