GW took communion which precludes him from being a Deist. Also, GW, by taking communion is approving the vicarious blood atonement for sin, which communion represents. He would know from the Bible that he should not take communion unworthily.

I disagree with you here, OFT.
I mean, I understand the point that for orthodox Christians, communion represents Jesus’s sacrifice to atone for mankind’s sin; and I understand that from the orthodox POV, people who do not accept this meaning of communion are not supposed to partake of it — thus, in theory, participating in orthodox communion ought to signify agreement with the orthodox understanding of what communion is.
However, Christians who are extremely heterodox in their overall theological views may also be heterodox with regard to the rules for taking communion!
And Deists — who don’t believe in revealed scripture — may choose to partake or not partake in Christian communion for their own personal reasons (though, obviously, a Deist who partakes of Christian communion is doing so for reasons that an orthodox Christian could not endorse). But whatever the Bible may say about “taking communion unworthily” is not going to be an obstacle for a Deist, because he doesn’t ascribe any special authority to the Bible in the first place.
In short, I would say that GW’s taking of communion simply proves that this act was not in conflict with his beliefs, or at least that it did not conflict with his beliefs to a degree that bothered his conscience.

No deist of the 18th century took communion.

I’m assuming you have some proof to back up this statement?