Donald Sterling vs. Cliven Bundy (1 Viewer)

[Doctor Detroit]

Donald Trump blames the girlfriend. Didn't see that coming!!!!

 

[pollardsvision]

The harsh reality is that David Stern repeatedly turned a blind eye to racist transgressions from Sterling in the view of some due to their shared religious affiliation. Silver will be forced to act harshly but Sterling should have been out of the league long ago.

I agree with with this. I also don't feel bad for Rivers, Paul or any free agent who signed with the Clippers. They knew or should have known what kind of man Sterling is.

What should Stern have done?

Maybe a small fine/suspension after the settlement, but that was settled. Many NBA owners are going to be accused of doing things that they will settle to make go away.

In spite of a history that points to Sterling being a terrible human being and a racist, we now have 2 things we never had before:

1. Sterling's voice saying the things we've always suspected

2. Public awareness and outcry

Here is a Jemele Hill 2009 column on Sterling (and Stern not doing enough): http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/110905

It's on Page 2. Nobody read it. Nobody cared.

If with this recording, it's still highly unlikely they can force him to sell the team.

Before there was no public outcry and nobody cared, I don't see how it made sense to do anything (other than privately try to get him to sell, which they probably tried and had no shot of pulling off).

 

[Don Quixote]

sterling is a democrat.

cliven is a republican.

both old school racists

I don't think Sterling's party affiliation is that clear. LA Times reported that Sterling has been a registered Republican since at least 1998, according to registration rolls.

 

[CBusAlex]

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole racist schtick. My wife has some black ancestry, I have regularly had black people, native Americans and Asians at my table for dinner, I have had close business associates that I have promoted who are of different racial backgrounds, but I am tired of the thought control implicit in pillorying anyone who fails to think the proper thoughts and express the proper politically correct opinions.

Though Sterling's deeds and actions may be racist, it would be doubleplusungood to describe him as such. Much as two plus two may sometimes equal three, and sometimes five, as the Party requires, so may a racist man be unracist, if the Party requires. To speak, or indeed even to believe otherwise is crimethink and must not be permitted, even to oneself.

 

[timschochet]

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole racist schtick. My wife has some black ancestry, I have regularly had black people, native Americans and Asians at my table for dinner, I have had close business associates that I have promoted who are of different racial backgrounds, but I am tired of the thought control implicit in pillorying anyone who fails to think the proper thoughts and express the proper politically correct opinions.

Though Sterling's deeds and actions may be racist, it would be doubleplusungood to describe him as such. Much as two plus two may sometimes equal three, and sometimes five, as the Party requires, so may a racist man be unracist, if the Party requires. To speak, or indeed even to believe otherwise is crimethink and must not be permitted, even to oneself.

WTF?

 

[jon_mx]

Donald Trump blames the girlfriend. Didn't see that coming!!!!

Maybe Trump can get her to show us her birth certificate.

 

[johnjohn]

sterling is a democrat.

cliven is a republican.

both old school racists

I don't think Sterling's party affiliation is that clear. LA Times reported that Sterling has been a registered Republican since at least 1998, according to registration rolls.

one is jewish and the other is Christian too ? What does any of this mean? Nothing....

 

[jon_mx]

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole racist schtick. My wife has some black ancestry, I have regularly had black people, native Americans and Asians at my table for dinner, I have had close business associates that I have promoted who are of different racial backgrounds, but I am tired of the thought control implicit in pillorying anyone who fails to think the proper thoughts and express the proper politically correct opinions.

Though Sterling's deeds and actions may be racist, it would be doubleplusungood to describe him as such. Much as two plus two may sometimes equal three, and sometimes five, as the Party requires, so may a racist man be unracist, if the Party requires. To speak, or indeed even to believe otherwise is crimethink and must not be permitted, even to oneself.

WTF?

I think it was an attempt at humor. Children please don't try this at home.

 

[timschochet]

How can Bundy be a Republican anyhow? Don't you have to recognize the United States?

 

[B-Deep]

Personally, I'm against racism.

oddly, this is not a statement that is unanimous around here

 

[Doctor Detroit]

80-year-old men say the darnedest things should be a show.

 

[EYLive]

Wait. Is this the space where we can talk about how smoking hot his girlfriend is? I kind of want to throat punch him just for the fact that he is an ogre and got to get with her.

We're gonna need a separate How Hot poll-thread for that.

I don't find her all that attractive, facially. Does that make me more racist than Sterling?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

NAACP news conference saying that given his past commitment to minorities and minority causes, his comments don't reflect what is in Sterling's heart. Interesting.

 

[The Commish]

NAACP news conference saying that given his past commitment to minorities and minority causes, his comments don't reflect what is in Sterling's heart. Interesting.

Double down on the moron!!!!!!

 

[Rove!]

80-year-old men say the darnedest things should be a show.

#### my dad says?

tried and failed....

 

[Rove!]

NAACP news conference saying that given his past commitment to minorities and minority causes, his comments don't reflect what is in Sterling's heart. Interesting.

terrible

 

[Joe Summer]

NAACP news conference saying that given his past commitment to minorities and minority causes, his comments don't reflect what is in Sterling's heart. Interesting.

That's because his heart is filled with money.

 

[Rove!]

NAACP news conference saying that given his past commitment to minorities and minority causes, his comments don't reflect what is in Sterling's heart. Interesting.

That's because his heart is filled with money.

Heart of "Gold"

 

[jon_mx]

Wait. Is this the space where we can talk about how smoking hot his girlfriend is? I kind of want to throat punch him just for the fact that he is an ogre and got to get with her.

We're gonna need a separate How Hot poll-thread for that.I don't find her all that attractive, facially. Does that make me more racist than Sterling?

Maybe not more racist, but definitely more gay than Sterling.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How can Bundy be a Republican anyhow? Don't you have to recognize the United States?

Not all of them.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Though Sterling's deeds and actions may be racist, it would be doubleplusungood to describe him as such. Much as two plus two may sometimes equal three, and sometimes five, as the Party requires, so may a racist man be unracist, if the Party requires. To speak, or indeed even to believe otherwise is crimethink and must not be permitted, even to oneself.

1984 + 30

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

 

[Sweet J]

Wait. Is this the space where we can talk about how smoking hot his girlfriend is? I kind of want to throat punch him just for the fact that he is an ogre and got to get with her.

We're gonna need a separate How Hot poll-thread for that.

I don't find her all that attractive, facially. Does that make me more racist than Sterling?

I don't think I've ever had sex with someone as good looking as her. But maybe I'm not looking at whatever pictures you are looking at. I still want to throat punch him.

 

[Sweet J]

Also, I could only make it a couple of minutes into the recording, but what's the deal with her feeding him orange juice while she's arguing with him? There is something really weird about that exchange.

Girl: "What do you mean I can't bring who I want to ga---. Hey, baby, do you want some juicy juice juice? Baby, please, drink some juicy!! That's a good baby."

Sterling: "Oh, ok, I'll have some juice. [drinks]. Why can't you take those pictures down!!??"

Did anyone else notice?

 

[Juxtatarot]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

There is no way the other owners would agree to stripping and the precident that would set.

 

[jon_mx]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree as does any advanced carbon-based life form that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someones assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

There is no way the other owners would agree to stripping and the precident that would set.

Nobody wants to see an old man strip.

 

[B-Deep]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

I am not so sure, only because his team directly impacts their teams and their profits. If the government took his team i would have a problem with that, but if the league owners decide that his ownership jeopardizes their businesses, that is a bit different. In a league like this there is a strange symbiosis that makes it a bit different from many businesses

i do not think they would strip him though, as much as convince him to "decide" to sell

 

[sublimeone]

OK we now know who 3 are. Who are the other 8?

Hey Tim, I think Sterling is a racist scumbag. But I don't think his franchise should be confiscated because he made racist comments in a private phone call. That doesn't make me or anyone else who feels this way a racist. I don't see anyone defending the content of what Sterling actually said.

 

[B-Deep]

i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority

 

[Don Quixote]

sterling is a democrat.

cliven is a republican.

both old school racists

I don't think Sterling's party affiliation is that clear. LA Times reported that Sterling has been a registered Republican since at least 1998, according to registration rolls.

one is jewish and the other is Christian too ? What does any of this mean? Nothing....

I agree it means nothing. Right wing news sites and blogs (Drudge, Daily Caller, NRO) were all over the "Sterling is a Democrat" story yesterday, for whatever reason. Those same sites have been walking that back today now that it is not clear that he is (except Drudge), so I was just correcting the OP.

 

[sublimeone]

i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority

Isn't a forced sale a form of confiscation?

The way to deal with this is to protest outside of games, stop buying tickets and merchandise, good players leaving via free agency etc.. It's a little unsettling the amount of people who want to impose their will because they disagree with this mans speech.

 

[timschochet]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

Why? I'm not saying they should do it, necessarily.

But it's not like the Los Angeles Clippers is simply a private business that earns money by selling a product to the public. It is part of a larger private organization called the NBA, and the NBA can do what it likes (within it's by-laws.) If the government were to force Sterling to give up his team, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. But why is it a 1st Amendment issue if the NBA does it?

 

[Juxtatarot]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

Why? I'm not saying they should do it, necessarily.

But it's not like the Los Angeles Clippers is simply a private business that earns money by selling a product to the public. It is part of a larger private organization called the NBA, and the NBA can do what it likes (within it's by-laws.) If the government were to force Sterling to give up his team, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. But why is it a 1st Amendment issue if the NBA does it?

I'm not an expert on the organizational structure of the NBA but I thought each team owned 1/30 of the NBA. For something like stripping to happen, I suspect the majority of the owners would have to agree. (Assuming they even have that power!) I doubt the other owners would want that to happen because then it could happen to them someday!

 

[sublimeone]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

Why? I'm not saying they should do it, necessarily.

But it's not like the Los Angeles Clippers is simply a private business that earns money by selling a product to the public. It is part of a larger private organization called the NBA, and the NBA can do what it likes (within it's by-laws.) If the government were to force Sterling to give up his team, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. But why is it a 1st Amendment issue if the NBA does it?

Tim, serious question, what if the NBA wanted to force an owner out because he was pro-choice, or a member of the NRA, or gay or whatever... As a private organization, do you think the NBA should be able to do whatever it's members want? Are private enterprises free to discriminate for any reason they wish, good or bad in your opinion?

 

[Rove!]

OK we now know who 3 are. Who are the other 8?

Hey Tim, I think Sterling is a racist scumbag. But I don't think his franchise should be confiscated because he made racist comments in a private phone call. That doesn't make me or anyone else who feels this way a racist. I don't see anyone defending the content of what Sterling actually said.

what about the his discriminatory hiring practices?

 

[The Commish]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

If the NBA can do it within it's bylaws, I have no problem with them taking it away from him. If you're talking about the gov't intervening etc, then I agree with you.

 

[B-Deep]

i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority

Isn't a forced sale a form of confiscation?

The way to deal with this is to protest outside of games, stop buying tickets and merchandise, good players leaving via free agency etc.. It's a little unsettling the amount of people who want to impose their will because they disagree with this mans speech.

see the point is if people deal with it the way you say, it hurts the other other owners

which is why those owners MAY have a basis to say, listen, your issues cannot hurt our teams and our league

magic johnson can say this man should not be an owner, that is his right, but he cannot make it happen. The other owners perhaps can. I do not think they have a moral obligation to let this man continue to own an NBA team and drag the league down if they think that is what will happen

 

[timschochet]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

Why? I'm not saying they should do it, necessarily.

But it's not like the Los Angeles Clippers is simply a private business that earns money by selling a product to the public. It is part of a larger private organization called the NBA, and the NBA can do what it likes (within it's by-laws.) If the government were to force Sterling to give up his team, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. But why is it a 1st Amendment issue if the NBA does it?

Tim, serious question, what if the NBA wanted to force an owner out because he was pro-choice, or a member of the NRA, or gay or whatever... As a private organization, do you think the NBA should be able to do whatever it's members want? Are private enterprises free to discriminate for any reason they wish, good or bad in your opinion?

Theoretically, yes.

 

[sublimeone]

OK we now know who 3 are. Who are the other 8?

Hey Tim, I think Sterling is a racist scumbag. But I don't think his franchise should be confiscated because he made racist comments in a private phone call. That doesn't make me or anyone else who feels this way a racist. I don't see anyone defending the content of what Sterling actually said.

what about the his discriminatory hiring practices?

If he's breaking the law it's a completely different thing.

 

[EYLive]

Wait. Is this the space where we can talk about how smoking hot his girlfriend is? I kind of want to throat punch him just for the fact that he is an ogre and got to get with her.

We're gonna need a separate How Hot poll-thread for that.I don't find her all that attractive, facially. Does that make me more racist than Sterling?

Maybe not more racist, but definitely more gay than Sterling.

You like that snout and those cheeks that belong on a Klingon?

2/10 Would not bang.

 

[sublimeone]

i don't think anyone wants his franchise confiscated, that would imply taken from him. I think they want to force him to sell, which will net him a very nice sum of money for his asset. Perhaps that is still not what some people want to happen, but it is a distinction i think should be noted

if someone does simply want his team taken from him without fair market compensation they are in an extremist minority

Isn't a forced sale a form of confiscation?

The way to deal with this is to protest outside of games, stop buying tickets and merchandise, good players leaving via free agency etc.. It's a little unsettling the amount of people who want to impose their will because they disagree with this mans speech.

see the point is if people deal with it the way you say, it hurts the other other owners

which is why those owners MAY have a basis to say, listen, your issues cannot hurt our teams and our league

magic johnson can say this man should not be an owner, that is his right, but he cannot make it happen. The other owners perhaps can. I do not think they have a moral obligation to let this man continue to own an NBA team and drag the league down if they think that is what will happen

I understand what you are saying and it's a legitimate point, but it's too much of a gray area for me. He hasn't broken the law. As abhorrent as racism is, it's not illegal.

Mark Cuban is kind of a PITA for the league... would you support the other owners ousting him? Where is the line drawn? What about the Ricketts family have some ties to right wingers and the tea party? Some would argue that could hurt business in a liberal city like Chicago. I just think it's a slippery slope and we should do everything possible to support free speech rights especially when that speech occurred in a private setting and was illegally recorded.

 

[sublimeone]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

Why? I'm not saying they should do it, necessarily.

But it's not like the Los Angeles Clippers is simply a private business that earns money by selling a product to the public. It is part of a larger private organization called the NBA, and the NBA can do what it likes (within it's by-laws.) If the government were to force Sterling to give up his team, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. But why is it a 1st Amendment issue if the NBA does it?

Tim, serious question, what if the NBA wanted to force an owner out because he was pro-choice, or a member of the NRA, or gay or whatever... As a private organization, do you think the NBA should be able to do whatever it's members want? Are private enterprises free to discriminate for any reason they wish, good or bad in your opinion?

Theoretically, yes.

how about actually?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Personally, I'm against racism.

oddly, this is not a statement that is unanimous around here

You make a lot of good points. I'm going to rethink my position.

 

[Rove!]

OK we now know who 3 are. Who are the other 8?

Hey Tim, I think Sterling is a racist scumbag. But I don't think his franchise should be confiscated because he made racist comments in a private phone call. That doesn't make me or anyone else who feels this way a racist. I don't see anyone defending the content of what Sterling actually said.

what about the his discriminatory hiring practices?

If he's breaking the law it's a completely different thing.

he has broken the law, but he settles out of court for huge settlements....

 

[timschochet]

Charles Pierce pretty much says what I've been thinking...

All of them agree — as does any advanced carbon-based life form — that if the recording is authentic, the comments show that Sterling is undeniably racist, undeniably revolting, and undeniably rooted in the mind of a man who would have to yield his moral pride of place to algae. There have been a number of calls for the league to strip Sterling of his franchise. This, I confess, makes me more than a little nervous. Taking someone’s assets because of what they think and say, no matter how grotesque it is, sets off all kinds of alarm bells in my First Amendment conscience.

You can boycott him, the league can suspend him, they can suggest he sell the team, players can refuse to go to his team, as an employer he might be eligible to be sued into oblivion -- all good. Make the franchise worthless if he stays.

But outright stripping him of the team is really shaky stuff IMO.

Why? I'm not saying they should do it, necessarily.

But it's not like the Los Angeles Clippers is simply a private business that earns money by selling a product to the public. It is part of a larger private organization called the NBA, and the NBA can do what it likes (within it's by-laws.) If the government were to force Sterling to give up his team, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. But why is it a 1st Amendment issue if the NBA does it?

Tim, serious question, what if the NBA wanted to force an owner out because he was pro-choice, or a member of the NRA, or gay or whatever... As a private organization, do you think the NBA should be able to do whatever it's members want? Are private enterprises free to discriminate for any reason they wish, good or bad in your opinion?

Theoretically, yes.

how about actually?

Actually, we have laws that might prevent some of what you're talking about. But if you want to know my opinion of what SHOULD be legal, a private organization or company should be able to hire or fire or allow membership to whomever it wants, period, without restriction. There should be restrictions based on discriminating against members of the public (for instance, you can't refuse to serve a person who is gay or black because they are gay and black) but not in terms of membership.

 

[sublimeone]

Interesting. So, you're cool with a company firing a woman because she gets pregnant or not hiring someone because he's gay or only promoting white males to management regardless of performance?

 

[timschochet]

Interesting. So, you're cool with a company firing a woman because she gets pregnant or not hiring someone because he's gay or only promoting white males to management regardless of performance?

I'm not cool with any of that. Should the law step in and prevent that from happening? I don't believe so.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Interesting. So, you're cool with a company firing a woman because she gets pregnant or not hiring someone because he's gay or only promoting white males to management regardless of performance?

If you don't think the statements Donald Sterling made in his phone conversation should be illegal, does that mean you're cool with those statements?

 

[sublimeone]

Interesting. So, you're cool with a company firing a woman because she gets pregnant or not hiring someone because he's gay or only promoting white males to management regardless of performance?

I'm not cool with any of that. Should the law step in and prevent that from happening? I don't believe so.

Fair enough. Sorry, I should have phrased it, you think it should be legal to...

 

[timschochet]

Interesting. So, you're cool with a company firing a woman because she gets pregnant or not hiring someone because he's gay or only promoting white males to management regardless of performance?

I'm not cool with any of that. Should the law step in and prevent that from happening? I don't believe so.

Sorry, I should have phrased it, you think it should be legal to...

Sublimeone, the part of me that remains libertarian tells me that we should have as free a society as possible.

But I want to stress that none of this is a big issue to me. We have laws prohibiting discrimination by businesses, and that's fine. Having those laws don't significantly infringe on our freedoms. In a perfect world we wouldn't have them, but I don't really care.