It's his money. I suppose he is free to use it however he likes. Discrimination? Really? Can you just look at a gay person and tell they are gay? If a person declares they are gay, is that enough to attain protected status?
This entire line of non reasoning is amazingly illogical. I understand, to an extent, anti-discrimination laws on conditions that are beyond the control of people, but sexual proclivities are a choice. This illogic ends in everyone attaining protected demographic status, and in the worst cases you can imagine.
Illogical reasoning? You are saying you used logical reasoning to come to the conclusion that "sexual proclivities" are a choice?
Please enlighten me as to what reasoning method you used to determine your conclusion.