This is completely wrong.

> If there are purposes that you don't want your project to be used for then forbid it in the license.

This is completely inapplicable.

> If I was denied the chance to receive a donation for a contribution I made to an open source project essentially because the "project owner" doesn't agree then I'd be very annoyed.

Start your own project.

Edit: Yes thanks for that downvote, encouraging people to have an intelligent conversation through constructive arguments rather than making pointless remarks seems to be frowned upon by some people

Isn't this really all there is to say on this subject?

The use of the name, by itself, is not and cannot be protected by a license. This is the domain of trademarks, which few of these projects would have, because trademarks must be registered and paid for. But that's probably not the issue here. The real issue is that the site seems to imply a business relationship with various projects and contributors that does not actually exist. Likely, this is enough to bring action if it comes to that.

Also, to address a point of confusion in this discussion: The no-promotion provisions in the BSD license and similar only applies to derivative software, which would be use under the license. The author can place restrictions on promotion of derivative works only because the licensee is actually copying and distributing the code under license and the license is the only thing that would give him the right to do so.