I do not speak for satanists, the Satanic Temple nor for any other atheists nor - and this is something people often don't understand - do they speak for the rest of atheists. Same goes for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However...
The first ammendment to the US constitution guarantees that no religious practice or expression will be prohibited because of its religious association. Being offended doesn't grant anyone rights nor take them away from anyone else.
I personally don't find that the capitol is a place to raise religious symbols and so do a lot of my fellow atheists, although I urge to attribute activities by the Satanic Temple to them and not make this about satanists or atheists in general. I also urge to distinguish between the two: While there is an overlap, in particular many satanists are also atheists, not all of them are, and only a few atheists are satanists. Anyway, the display the Satanic Temple made was of course provocative though perfectly within Florida regulations - which is exactly the point. It perfectly illustrated that religion is indeed a private thing and has no place in the public square. The moment you allow any of it to have a display in the capitol, you have to allow all of them to have one. And if you do so, there won't be anybody left you will not have offended. Since you have to treat them all equally and cannot just allow some while prohibit others you are much better off keeping them all out of the capitol altogether. Is that banning religion? I don't think so. I think that is what separation of church and state is there for. And only if the state is free of religion can its people be free to it.
Now, as for intolerance of religion vs intolerance of religious adherents... Either you define the religion by what its adherents do or by what its dogma teaches or both. In the case of Christianity neither the text nor the faithful are consistently tolerant of those who are not part of it, though the latter arguably are more tolerant than the former. The crowd that is most outspoken isn't the kindest and mildest crowd. The crowd that forms the bulk might not be quite that outspoken but won't condemn the unkind crowd. The crowd of intellectuals who sincerely believe and "let live" is growing ever smaller though it has never before been a significant subset. If you want to argue that religion in general is not intolerant this probably will get down to what you mean by religion. If you want to argue that Christianity in particular isn't, this probably will get down to what you mean by tolerance. However, whatever your action might be, what causes it is never the not-believing that you have a holy mission.
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
