@freddy I think you question prompts clarification questions...
Is it just the editor's views that are morally questionable or the site in general? Or is it that the site is small and tightly managed thus practically an extension of the editor's persona?
What is the reach of the site? In some cases, publishing is the lesser of two evils. For example, a publishing house may be owned by a questionable individual, but the output of the house is nonetheless of great literary importance and thus having the morally sound work published to the widest possible audience outweighs the morally questionable conduct of the owner.
@rw only the editors views are morally questionable, not the site in general.
The site has featured some quite prominant writers, though accepts a broad variety of people. The editor does write a lot of articles for the site (which are generally good, as they don't tend to write about the controversial issue).
I like the publishing house analogy, some food for thought (to use the awful expression).
