Bigot is not well defined. But as an atheist myself, I find religious people of all sorts irritating.
So I guess the question is, factoring in all of the information you have, including the religious practices you find distasteful, if it’s a business decision, is it the decision that is best for your bottom line?
Now, if it’s an entertainment decision, if you can’t enjoy the media because of something you believe the performers have done, that’s a totally different story. From now on, far fewer people can enjoy Bill Cosby reruns, despite the fact that the private criminal acts of the main actor in no way affects what they recorded on the TV set.
I would say that you shouldn’t feel bad about so preferences unless they are so severe that say, if you were locked in solitary confinement and could do nothing but watch Bill Cosby reruns or turn the TV off, you would rather sit in silence with nothing but your own inner voices for company.
What I find upsetting about this whole Cosby mess is that those who used to like him seem to have written him off wholesale-- not just The Cosby Show, but possibly even I Spy (and that because Bill Cosby was even in it). One time before, I tried to watch a 1985 Monday Night Football broadcast (one of the two or three from that now out-of-print Chicago Bears 1985 season DVD release from Warner Bros.), my father saw me watching it, and he thought that because it had O.J. Simpson in it as one of the people in the booth, it was no good for me to watch (let alone that such was 9 years before O.J.'s infamous murder trial started); I think just the name O.J. Simpson conjures up bad memories to him.
There’s something specific about the OP’s situation though - he’s specifically worried about funding the church. He’s not worried about funding the church member; he’s worried about funding the church itself.
This is a little different than boycotting somebody because you don’t like their race or hair color - or even because you don’t like their religion. It’s more akin to refusing to frequent a business because you know it’s a front for a criminal or terrorist organization. Which is not to say that religion is equivalent to terrorism - stay with me here. The point is that if you think that engaging in a business organization is directly funding an organization you don’t approve of, it’s entirely rational and reasonable to look for other ways to spend your money. That’s a bit different than avoiding the business because you want to punish the businessmen for their life choices - the businessman loses business in either case, but in the former case the intent isn’t to punish them; their lost business is just a side effect of your attempt to avoid helping an organization.
On the whole I don’t see that distinction as much allaying my concern. And the terrorism analogy reinforces it. More people now are losing their sense of proportion IMO that they’d make an analogy like that, even with disclaimers. If something is really different in one’s view, better to find something more similar for one’s analogy.
Again, mine is not a point about black and white categorization, ‘this is about person’s voluntary actions not who they are’, ‘this is about an organization not the person’. I just think the general trend toward examining everyone else’s tribal memberships to decide if you can stomach having some unrelated relationship with them (including business, including consuming the entertainment they produce) is getting carried away. It won’t lead to a better society IMO.
I’m going back in part to OP’s own admission at least as I understood that the You Tube video’s had nothing to do with religion, OP just realized separately this person was part of a frowned upon (by OP) religion.
Although again by same token, I wouldn’t blow it up into a federal case that OP doesn’t want to watch particular video’s. It just if the question is whether this is healthy/admirable behavior, I’d say no.