OK ... let's say I'm severely injured in some sort of industrial accident, and I get a transfusion in ER. And it came from this freak. And I get some horrid, incurable disease. And I sue him. And win a judgment against him for 100 Trillion Dollars. And he's prosecuted. And convicted. And goes to prison for the rest of his life.
Guess what?
I still have the horrid, incurable disease.
I merely put out there, that if they (sodomites) want to insist on contaminating the blood supply with their diseases, that they should be liable for the resulting damage.
It was not intended to indicate that I support the idea that they should be allowed to donate blood, but to put the burden on them. If you were to ask them would they support the idea that they should be criminally and civilly liable for the damage they have wrought, what do you think the answer would be? I suspect that they would refuse, and thus it removes the problem of them contaminating the blood supply.
If we stand up and say “no, you can’t donate blood because you are a filthy sodomite” we’re not going to win that argument even if we are correct on the merits.