If it is possible to go after a diocese because a priest engaged in sexual misbehavior, why couldn’t one go after a diocese because that misbehavior led a victim to act out gay behavior up to their illness and eventual death?
For example, why couldn’t the employer of Rock Hudson (or his estate) be sued for negligently turning a blind eye to sexual predation leading to the infection of the preyed upon?
Why couldn’t my United Methodist denomination be sued for it’s bishop turning a negligent, blind eye to the sexual predation that accompanies gathering those with histories of same and turning them loose amidst potential prey?
Don't confuse illegal acts with legal ones. Most of the things you mention are ALREADY illegal and can be prosecuted as such.
Granted, you can sue anybody you want for anything you want. The question is whether the suit will succeed, and produce the result you want.
The approach this article suggests, smacks of the "hate crime" nonsense, in which an already illegal activity (say, killing somebody) is made somehow "more" illegal because it was done with "Thought Crime" too. Sorry, won't wash. Any argument that talking about homosexual activity should be illegal because the activity is dangerous is just doomed.
If the particular activity is illegal, it can be prosecuted as such. Advocating legal-but-dangerous activities is legal, and should remain so, just as advocating sky-jumping and other dangerous activities is legal. For that matter, advocating illegal activities is generally considered protected speech under the First Amendment. I guarantee you that you don't want the Government deciding that you can be sued for talking about an action just because the action is illegal -- that's one of the marks of tyranny, FRiend.
Just find a plaintiff.