Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

That’s a whole lot of words to communicate what could be easily described by reframing the concept of tolerance as a social contract rather than a moral precept.

So they took over a building they don’t own, refused to leave, and had a list of demands?

Yeah, sounds like something the police should be called for.

Would you say the same thing about organized sit-ins in segregated buildings during the civil rights movement? Same set of facts, took over a building they didn’t own, refused to leave, had a list of demands. If not, then clearly you believe that if the status quo is untenable and the demands reasonable then the action is justified.

This is peaceful civil disobedience in opposition to an ongoing genocide being broken up by the police state.