I'm sure that some of the people I work with at food banks are homophobic because they hold a particularly conservative version of their faith. I'm also sure that they aren't directly working with the government to cause material harm to marginalized people, which I cannot say about my current employer.
Similarly I have no doubt the Food Banks have people who hold such views. But it doesn't matter if they are still willing to give food even to homeless, possibly even homeless people who are homosexual (statistically homosexual people are more likely to be in poverty or homeless).
It's still a net positive action if they are giving food to those they deem as against their beliefs. Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
> Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
Actions often speak louder than words.
To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded.
This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.