Transexuals

[Crossless2.0]

Instead of repeating this page after page, why don't you substantiate this ridiculous claim that those with mental disorders make or dictate the rules for society, as opposed to -- oh, I don't know -- duly elected lawmakers? 

Because as I've already pointed out 'law makers' are influenced by the GLBT vote, or at the very least by their buying power, and those they buy from.

North Carolina and Mississippi have enacted legislation that I assume you approve of. There's been some blowback as a result of this legislation, and both states may suffer mild economic consequences as a result of their decisions -- something Indiana learned about last year when they tried to implement laws that much of society (including several major corporations, concerned about their PR images) deemed discriminatory and unacceptable. Indiana walked that shit back in a New York minute when they realized that they don't exist in a vacuum, that they weren't in step with current mores concerning the treatment of gay people, and that their decision had real consequences.

My example was with georgia they were due to loose 6 billion dollars in revenue when the film industry threatened to pull out if their version of the Miss/Nc. Law passed.

Which demonstrates that it is not the law makers with the power. Clearly the people of Georgia wanted this law to pass, but the 'law makers' freted over cut funding and folded the will of the people to the will of the corporations. This more than anything should scare ALL of US! If a company like Disney or Film actors guild can threaten and change policy/law what else can they manipulate?

Your nattering about political correctness and the insanity of letting mentally ill people make the rules for everyone else is nothing more than a smokescreen for your personal disapproval of our society's evolving standards of acceptance for gay and transgender people. As for the business end of this issue, yes, states are free to enact legislation that does not run afoul of the federal Constitution and that state's constitution. What they're not free from is the disapproval of society. If they want to take the hit, fine. If not, then they might have to re-evaluate their stance, as Indiana did. But they can't have it both ways.

Again My concern is not with the 1%ers. its with the those looking to exploit those laws

In response to the bolded section, so what else is new? Again, a state always has the option of taking the revenue hit if they enact laws that others disapprove of. The governor and congress of Georgia apparently believe they have bigger fish to fry. If the citizens of Georgia are truly aggrieved and motivated to act as a result of their representatives folding in the face of corporate pressure, then they can protest the decision and eventually vote the lawmakers out of office. But let's not be Pollyannas about this. Corporate pressure is a fixture of our political landscape, and its influence has resulted in far more damaging and sinister things than the film industry threatening to pull out of Georgia over LGBT legislation.

It's interesting to me that this particular instance of corporate interests overriding the will of the voters is what gets you in a twist, especially given the myriad examples of truly pernicious corporate meddling one could adduce. Perhaps your concern over corporate influence is a long-standing thing with you, but I can't recall ever seeing you mention it before.