No.
There is more nuance to it than that. If its something like simple left-wing/right-wing politics, sure you have a moral obligation to host both sides for as long as both sides participate in good faith and there is a mutual respect between the two. It becomes different when the disagreement comes from one side saying some people don't deserve to exist. There is no good faith way to say some percentage of the population are sub-human and should be eliminated.
Like do you really think if a trans person is running a Lemmy instance, they are morally obligated to host a community that has members in it that call for the death of trans people? It would be like saying you are obligated to let someone live in your house even though they were just outside your house threatening to burn it down.
People that spew hate can do so, but the price they pay for that should be that they shouldn't feel invited or comfortable anywhere besides their little hate hole. We have allowed them too much comfort lately because we have always been told this "do unto others" shit growing up. The problem with that mentality is that it assumes everyone is operating under that rule, but some people are exploiting that and treat others like shit knowing they won't get punched in the face for it.
People need to just chill out and touch some grass.
Like how long have you been on the internet? If the whole federation thing can be bought out by a company and ruined, then it's a failed experiment and we move on to the next thing. It's a tale as old as the internet itself, cool grassroots thing gets popular, sells out, destroys itself, repeat every few years.
For now, kbin and lemmy are working, but don't think this will last forever or won't get tested. Either the concept is good and it will stand the test of corporate takeover, or it won't and we try something else.