Friday, September 30, 2005


... with the gays on this one; and I think the Lord would too! The report is from under the Great Down Under ...
The Red Cross Blood Service will be forced to defend its donor-screening policies in the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission.

The commission today announced a landmark decision to investigate the service following a Tasmanian man's claim he had been discriminated against because he is gay. It's the first time the Red Cross has ever publicly defended its ban on gay male blood donors.
I don't think it's the donor who should be screened but the donation. Certainly we've reached the place where we can screen blood for HIV/AIDS? Donors who don't tell the truth will slip through anyway.

Michael Cain, a 22-year-old said ...
the Red Cross nurse had told him "you people" - referring to gay men - had a higher risk of blood contamination because of unsafe sex practices.
If true that does sound like it's his behavior which is being judged, not his blood. If it's the behavior which offends, I suggest we reject blood from Christian gossips before we reject homosexual donations.

Mr. Cain says ...

I know that I have safe sex ... it almost felt like I was being accused of being a dirty person. ... . Unsafe sex should be what the Red Cross screens potential donors for, not gay sex.
This is one aspect of the Homosexual lifestyle I cringe at, they're in denial about the dangers; there simply is no such thing as "safe sex" for what they call sex! But it's still the blood not the donor which should be screened.

Spain, Switzerland, and Italy have already rescinded similar policies; not that anything from the EU should be raved about.

; ;

No comments:

Post a Comment