Okay. I now think that you believe this, so I apologize(Unless you don't really believe it, in which case well played).
Intolerance is simply the outer-manifestation of a disagreement, and banning 'Intolerance' simply means you've assumed that 'Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'.
The simple truth is that we should be intolerant of certain things - If a man is schizophrenic and decides to jump off a building, we -should- interfere with him. If two inner-city gangs and shooting the poop out of each other, we -should- put a stop to it. If a child decides she doesn't want to go to school, we -should- interfere with that.
On the other hand, if you're suggesting that we should embrace classical liberalism where "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", then that is an argument.
However: That requires the ability to criticize things, including things the majority(Or minority) would rather not have criticized.
If your rule is that intolerant thought is fine, but intolerant action are not, then you've actually just outlawed voting unless you vote for a party that promises not to adversely affect anyone ever.