Anonymous wrote:As usual, grasping for any straw to lessen what he did & say well blacks are just as bad. Yet you fools can't find a viable comparison so you exxagerate the actions of any black person to victimize whites & think that puts blacks and whites on the same scale. It doesn't. No prejudice opinion of any black people you can fish for will match the discrimination and racism of whites. Deal with it!

Word.

This need to play tit for tat, instead of owning that this is racist is some bs. And, amazingly enough, these same folks will call black people defensive and say we have a chip on our shoulder.

White people on the board pulling the "what about him?" card again smh. Can we have any small victories to ourselves? I admit, I thought the decision was rather harsh, no matter how foul and vile of a man I find him to be. Hearing that tape downright hurt, and I know a lot of people share his sentiment behind closed doors. I put my personal feelings and emotions aside and was like damn, they destroyed him. That's one of those things that I would not wish on my worse enemy. However it makes we wonder if it was still legal to make us work for free, would Don Sterling be the first one lined up to inspect the goods?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

Then don't buy his records. Just don't . I don't give money to people whose words and actions u find offensive, no matter what the color.
You have no point.

PP has a point.

Anyone in entertainment has an audience, and while most adults can figure things out, kids are vulnerable. So to a kid with limited experience, Jay Z (and others) is cool.

THAT'S the point. sorry you can't grasp the bigger picture

I'm confused. What disparaging and racist comments has Jay-Z said about white people in his lyrics?

Invading someone privacy on a phone call, post it on every news media, and ruin a persons career over a few off color remarks. This does not seem like the thought police to anyone? Pretty soon even your own home won't be safe from prying ears. Out of control. free speech?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but discrimination IS illegal. Check out his past history of discrimination, lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, but racist thoughts expressed in private conversation are not actionable discrimination, except perhaps if they are shared with an employee who claims such discrimination. No matter how offensive, odious and bone-headed, the Constitution protects most speech.

He is not being ousted and penalized because he is racist. Heck the league has long known about that defect in Sterling. Sterling is simply bad for business right now, and that is why he is being ousted. Think about it. The majority of the NBA players, not just the clippers, threatened to boycott and this is playoff season. Ouch, that's a lot of loss revenue. First you have empty arenas. Second you have loss of television rights. Third, you have loss of paraphernalia revenue because people stop purchashing that stuff. Moreover, as of yesterday, ten, maybe more, major advertisers pulled their ads. Advertisers like Addidas, Nike, Sprint, etc. That's big dough.

Sterlings comments began affecticting the balance books of the other owners and the NBA as an entity. They share and share alike in all profits. So yeah, Sterling had to go - bad for business.

Now if you don't get and understand this, you will never get it.

Perfectly explained! For all we know other owners in the league & others feel the exact same way. They just aren't dumb enough to mess with their bottom line by expressing it. If you want to express disgusting thoughts like that freely watch the company you keep. You don't know the other person's intentions.

Hell hath no fury...
Shouldn't have been messing around with them young girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid and awful, but not illegal. It has it's own punishment. I'm tired of hearing about the basketball guy.

Yes, and part of the punishment is being publicly shamed.

Oh good, are we going to dole out the same treatment for black racists?

Sure, as soon as a black racist owns a major sports franchise.

Us as blacks can't be racist, only prejudice. We lack the institutional power to do such.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but discrimination IS illegal. Check out his past history of discrimination, lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, but racist thoughts expressed in private conversation are not actionable discrimination, except perhaps if they are shared with an employee who claims such discrimination. No matter how offensive, odious and bone-headed, the Constitution protects most speech.

He is not being ousted and penalized because he is racist. Heck the league has long known about that defect in Sterling. Sterling is simply bad for business right now, and that is why he is being ousted. Think about it. The majority of the NBA players, not just the clippers, threatened to boycott and this is playoff season. Ouch, that's a lot of loss revenue. First you have empty arenas. Second you have loss of television rights. Third, you have loss of paraphernalia revenue because people stop purchashing that stuff. Moreover, as of yesterday, ten, maybe more, major advertisers pulled their ads. Advertisers like Addidas, Nike, Sprint, etc. That's big dough.

Sterlings comments began affecticting the balance books of the other owners and the NBA as an entity. They share and share alike in all profits. So yeah, Sterling had to go - bad for business.

Now if you don't get and understand this, you will never get it.

Perfectly explained! For all we know other owners in the league & others feel the exact same way. They just aren't dumb enough to mess with their bottom line by expressing it. If you want to express disgusting thoughts like that freely watch the company you keep. You don't know the other person's intentions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but discrimination IS illegal. Check out his past history of discrimination, lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, but racist thoughts expressed in private conversation are not actionable discrimination, except perhaps if they are shared with an employee who claims such discrimination. No matter how offensive, odious and bone-headed, the Constitution protects most speech.

He is not being ousted and penalized because he is racist. Heck the league has long known about that defect in Sterling. Sterling is simply bad for business right now, and that is why he is being ousted. Think about it. The majority of the NBA players, not just the clippers, threatened to boycott and this is playoff season. Ouch, that's a lot of loss revenue. First you have empty arenas. Second you have loss of television rights. Third, you have loss of paraphernalia revenue because people stop purchashing that stuff. Moreover, as of yesterday, ten, maybe more, major advertisers pulled their ads. Advertisers like Addidas, Nike, Sprint, etc. That's big dough.

Sterlings comments began affecticting the balance books of the other owners and the NBA as an entity. They share and share alike in all profits. So yeah, Sterling had to go - bad for business.

Now if you don't get and understand this, you will never get it.

SO True.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid and awful, but not illegal. It has it's own punishment. I'm tired of hearing about the basketball guy.

This is not unprecedented. I think it was the 80's, but it could have been early 90's, MLB banned the cincinnati
Reds owner for life for wearing a swastika and saying Hitler was not all bad. Eventually she was forced to sell her team. I don't recall anyone expressing their fatigue of hearing about the matter.

Schott was not a lifetime ban and more importantly selig did not force her to sell the team.

Her Limited Parnter's decided to take that action on their own.

This case is different....in that someone outside of the ownership of the clippers will vote to determine a forcible sale of the property. It is much more agressive than what MLB did with Schott

Schott made her offensive comments in her capacity as owner, not drunk jealous random private pillow talk to a lying boyfriend.

i know - which makes the NBA action against sterling even more harsher than what MLB/Selig did to Schott

Let's be clear, people have been banned from professional sports. I'm not sure that this is less harsh than what happened to Pete Rose, it just involves ownership vs. labor.

lol. Pete Rose was GAMBLING ON HIS BASEBALL GAMES. The integrity of the sport was threatened - the competition may not be legitimate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but discrimination IS illegal. Check out his past history of discrimination, lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, but racist thoughts expressed in private conversation are not actionable discrimination, except perhaps if they are shared with an employee who claims such discrimination. No matter how offensive, odious and bone-headed, the Constitution protects most speech.

He is not being ousted and penalized because he is racist. Heck the league has long known about that defect in Sterling. Sterling is simply bad for business right now, and that is why he is being ousted. Think about it. The majority of the NBA players, not just the clippers, threatened to boycott and this is playoff season. Ouch, that's a lot of loss revenue. First you have empty arenas. Second you have loss of television rights. Third, you have loss of paraphernalia revenue because people stop purchashing that stuff. Moreover, as of yesterday, ten, maybe more, major advertisers pulled their ads. Advertisers like Addidas, Nike, Sprint, etc. That's big dough.

Sterlings comments began affecticting the balance books of the other owners and the NBA as an entity. They share and share alike in all profits. So yeah, Sterling had to go - bad for business.

Now if you don't get and understand this, you will never get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but discrimination IS illegal. Check out his past history of discrimination, lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, but racist thoughts expressed in private conversation are not actionable discrimination, except perhaps if they are shared with an employee who claims such discrimination. No matter how offensive, odious and bone-headed, the Constitution protects most speech.

...the Constitution protects most speech FROM ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Is it the government taking action? Nope. It's the NBA. The Constitution does not protect most speech from action by the NBA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but discrimination IS illegal. Check out his past history of discrimination, lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, but racist thoughts expressed in private conversation are not actionable discrimination, except perhaps if they are shared with an employee who claims such discrimination. No matter how offensive, odious and bone-headed, the Constitution protects most speech.

+1

Anonymous wrote:No, but discrimination IS illegal. Check out his past history of discrimination, lawsuits and settlements.

Yes, but racist thoughts expressed in private conversation are not actionable discrimination, except perhaps if they are shared with an employee who claims such discrimination. No matter how offensive, odious and bone-headed, the Constitution protects most speech.

NP here. Interesting article in the Post today about this very issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/legally-nba-ban-is-likely-a-done-deal-team-sale-is-a-more-complicated-matter/2014/04/29/2b4217c0-cfd3-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html

No, it's not "illegal" to be a racist jerk. However, the government doesn't come into it because this isn't a first amendment issue. So it's not "illegal" in the sense that he's broken some government rule.

It is, however, an issue between Sterling and the NBA. This is because Sterling signed the NBA's constitution which allows them to punish him for "conduct detrimental or prejudicial" to the league. Sterling can take the NBA to court, although it's not clear whether he'd win.

Similar thing happened with Mozilla's owner, I believe. Didn't that guy contribute to anti-gay marriage politicians, so Mozilla ousted him? I could be wrong. But again, it had nothing to do with your right to say anything under the first amendment. It had everything to do with your contract with a private company, and their view about whether you had violated the contract (the cynical take is the company thinks you have become detrimental to their profits).

As usual, grasping for any straw to lessen what he did & say well blacks are just as bad. Yet you fools can't find a viable comparison so you exxagerate the actions of any black person to victimize whites & think that puts blacks and whites on the same scale. It doesn't. No prejudice opinion of any black people you can fish for will match the discrimination and racism of whites. Deal with it!