Sadly, he doesn't explain himself
at all. He says he has no animosity, but provides no explanation for how such a thing could be done without it.
I imagine he thinks he has a sound, non-hateful reasoning behind his position which will not be taken as such if discussed. In context, I'd guess he's probably wrong about it being sound and non-hateful. Often, being unwilling to discuss one's positions is part of your brain trying to tell the rest of you that you've got it wrong. Not always, obviously, but I'd say it's the way to bet.
In any case, if you're willing to make a public stand on something (and given the political finance laws he donated under, it qualifies as a public stand) then you should be willing to discuss your stand. If he's not willing to discuss it then we don't necessarily have to assume the very best.
