Just because a group does not support something in their philosophy does not mean they are actively campaigning to make it illegal.
The Salvation Army is not using their donations to campaign to make gambling, Gay marriage, or porn illegal.
They use their money to help needy people.
In the article, they even admit to helping LGBT people but don't agree with their lifestyle!
Everything they tried to label the Salvation Army as "bad" was actually perfectly understandable.

The author being dumbfounded by the fact that Christians speak ill of gambling, porn, prostitution, or having gay sex and then can't believe it when Chrisitans also say "All people have a right to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, safe environment, economic security.)" shows how ignorant the author is to other political ideas.
Look up Distributionalism or actually learn a little about Christianity.

I don't mean this as an insult, but it's a little funny how immature this article reads.
It reads as a high school or 19/20 year old college student first diving into politics.
I used to be a Libertarian in high school and I can see myself writing something similar.

This is the most fundamental misunderstanding that non-religious Secular/Rational Modern people have about Christianity.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding Atheists and non-religious people have about the word "Sin".

"Sin" is an archery term. It literally means "to miss the mark". When a Christian says you are being sinful, all they are saying is, that you are not doing the right thing and should correct yourself on a more correct moral path.
I didn't always used to be a Christian, and I know how judgemental this can sound to a non-Christian.

"Sin" is a spiritual mistake. Not a secular crime.

Here's an example. It's perfectly legal to eat toilet paper.
Does that mean eating toilet paper is good? That eating toilet paper and eating actual food are perfectly equal?
Of course not.
So when a psychologist or nutritionist comes along and says "People should not eat toilet paper and I disagree with that choice" are they trying to make it a crime to eat toilet paper?
The Secular Rational argument would be "eating toilet paper is bad because toilet paper does not have vitamins, calories or nutrients."

The Religious argument would be something like "toilet paper does not sustain your body which was made in the image of God. Our bodies are our temples and we should nourish them."

As I said, I used to think of myself as a Libertarian when I was in high school. I am well aware of the Libertarian arguments but I was not aware of other arguments. I hope I explained my points well enough for you to see what I mean.