"You don't let me express my racism/fascism/homophobia in words and action against others? That means you are INTOLERANT, you hypocrite!"
No, it's Karl Popper's
paradox of tolerance.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
In short, if people try to invoke "freedom of religion" to support their unconstitutional discrimination against others based on race, sex, or orientation, they are violating one of the minimum requirements of an open, pluralist society.
...I don't think UDHR came "straight out" of Catholic natural law. It may have been informed by it to some extent, but I don't think we should assume that the philosophical pathways are pure in this case. If anything, the UDHR represents a Western idea as to how the rest of the world should proceed "post-Holocaust," and it does this "without God" as a conceptual anchor. In which case, I have to say to all those who think the UDHR is a dream come true...."Good Luck!"
