Laley23;1610914 wrote:Please explain to me how discriminating by disagreeing with a Catholics viewpoint is the same as discriminating because said catholic is black.

TedSheckler;1610817 wrote:What would you call being forced to sell your team?

I Wear Pants;1610925 wrote:So you don't think he should follow the NBA ownership rules? He basically has a franchise. He has to follow corporate/organizational rules.

If I own a McDonald's franchise I have to follow their rules and if I do something they don't like I shouldn't expect to keep my McDonald's branding.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1610923 wrote:disagreeing and discriminating are two different things. You didn't discriminate against a catholic if you said I don't agree with your belief. You discriminated against a catholic if you judged them or excluded them because they were catholic.

HitsRus;1610924 wrote:Great day? I don't find a public media lynching of a man for expressing a thought in private conversation that was surreptitiously recorded, no matter how reprehensible, a great day....soooo McCarthyesque. What did he do that broke any discrimination laws?

Just asking.

HitsRus;1610924 wrote:Great day? I don't find a public media lynching of a man for expressing a thought in private conversation that was surreptitiously recorded, no matter how reprehensible, a great day....soooo McCarthyesque. What did he do that broke any discrimination laws?

Just asking.

So you don't think he should follow the NBA ownership rules? He basically has a franchise. He has to follow corporate/organizational rules.

Laley23;1610927 wrote:I can honestly say, since I have grown up and understand the world (no clue what I did as a youngster, I probably discriminated) I have not ever done anything like that.

I can honestly say, since I have grown up and understand the world (no clue what I did as a youngster, I probably discriminated) I have not ever done anything like that.

HitsRus;1610954 wrote:I guess I'm unclear as to what he actually did that was discriminatory...other than voice a 'racist' thought in private.

HighRoller74;1610928 wrote:He hasn't broken any laws, however the court of Public Opinion has turned on him. To save face for the public, and it's employees the NBA had to act.

reclegend22;1610967 wrote:Yep. The NBA already proved once that it didn't particularly care what Sterling's privately-held views were when the League turned a blind eye to the racially-disparaging comments attributed to the Clippers owner a decade ago. The NBA only acted this time due to the fact that these latest views were made so public via the recorded conversation and the wrath of outrage that followed from fans and, more importantly, members of the media and the "talking heads" who were pressuring the organization to bring down the hammer. It was the only move Adam Silver could make lest he want to face that same scorn and lose his job.

Laley23;1610970 wrote:All that is true, but dont overlook the fact that last time it had nothing to do with the NBA.

This time, he directed the remarks DIRECTLY to the NBA and its players.

reclegend22;1610972 wrote:That is true (the Magic Johnson comment especially). Either way, though, for the NBA to act today like it didn't know about Sterling's history in order to save face and put on airs of sanctimony is comical. When directly asked during today's presser why the NBA didn't do anything sooner when Sterling's racism was so widely publicized, Silver totally dodged the question. I just find that funny.

Say that he didnt want blacks at his games, and, the most racist part, that can be interpreted as being a plantation owner "I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them?"

I Wear Pants;1610807 wrote:How would it embarrass people who have condemned him? They've condemned him for being an asshole and they're right. Sponsors don't want to touch him, the public doesn't like him, and the organization doesn't want to associate with him. That's exactly how business is supposed to work.

HitsRus;1610975 wrote:But that is what he said in a private conversation that was illegally taped. Has any of this come thru in actions? What actions has he actually committed that could be considered discriminatory against any of his players?

HitsRus;1610975 wrote:But that is what he said in a private conversation that was illegally taped. None of that was meant for public consumption. Has any of this come thru in actions? What actions has he actually committed that could be considered discriminatory against any of his players?

reclegend22;1610957 wrote:Lol at the live theatrics leading into the Clippers game and all the inspirational music and highlight videos. When is the last time that the national anthem and introductions were fully televised for a first round NBA playoff game? Why must we dramatize every fucking thing like this. It's time to move on.

Or maybe I just have missed this and it happens all the time..

In the eyes of the players, and most in the black community it truly doesn't matter that he hasn't acted on it, its the fact that he said it.

HitsRus;1610984 wrote:In regard to this other case ...did it involve the NBA....was it a concern of the league...was he previously reprimanded by the league. You have to look at the merits of this on its own. I mean is it good enough to not act like a racist?...or does a person have to have pure thoughts too? These comments of his were obviously not meant to be public, but were exposed by treachery, deceit and unlawful recording. There are a lot of reasons why a person of his age could harbor some racist tendencies...is a man liable for thoughts...or actions?