I agree, it ought to be a hard line.

Question is, though, where's the line? We don't all come with the same exact moral compass, and we're all perfectly capable of rationalizing evil, so you can't just say "be a moral and non-bigoted person" and expect the desired outcome. Plenty of slave owners worldwide were convinced that slavery was not just morally admissible but even admirable.

No matter where that line is, it needs to be well-defined and agreed-upon, or else it's arbitrary, and thus open to abuse and corruption by demagogues.

I don't like that he supported a campaign against gay marriage. I don't know his reasons for doing so but it's probably not one I'd support.

But my understanding extends no further. I know he made a donation. I don't have the nuance or understanding to extrapolate that into putting him into an entire box

There's something ironic about tarring him with a broad brush based on one attribute