It is not logically inconsistent for liberals and progressives to be intolerant of intolerance in the name of tolerance. In fact it is illogical to ask proponents of tolerance to be tolerant of intolerance.

For example:

Trying to stop bullying (a negative act--opposing bullying), if successful, results in a more positive environment.

Fighting against racism (being anti-racist), if successful, results in a more positive environment.

In these cases, the intolerance towards a belief/behavior that is intolerant (bullying, racism), if successful, results in greater tolerance.

The world views religious opposition to homosexuality, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, etc as intolerance. Thus, if this intolerance of homosexuality etc is successfully met with intolerance, society would become a more tolerant place.

Mormons argue that the world is a better place intolerant of homosexual relationships. We think that homosexual relationships are wicked and that wickedness is never happiness and that gay people would be happier spending the years of their lives alone or married to people of the opposite sex. It has become an increasingly hard sale. One that could very well exclude us from many clubs from sports leagues to accreditation certifications to political offices and appointments. But we don't want to be popular. We want to be happy/not wicked. The tent is going to get small and cozy and isolated, but those dancing inside (dancing strictly with opposite sex partners of course) will be having a ball!