Additional racist comments attributed to Clippers' Donald Sterling released

[dallen]

Yea, but you as a successful business owner know this probably better than all of us - people will not want to be publicly associated with you when something of this magnitude becomes public knowledge, regardless of how it came to be known.

So whether it was you or a potential business partner of yours, if word got out in the local news about either party making comments like this, I would imagine that you would hesitate to conduct business with that person/company and vice versa......am I right? Because you don't need the negative reputation hit on your business and neither do they.

Whether it's landscaping, construction, insurance, or something as huge as a professional sporting league, business is business and perception in the business world matters as does public opinion in the uber-politically correct era that we live in. So because of that, I don't really see the point of defending his right to basic freedom. Sucks for him that this side of him was exposed in the manner that it was, but it still warrants removing him from his position as owner of the team.

It comes down to a different set of rules for people in the public eye. If you have a "name" then you have to protect it at all times.

 

[Texas Ace]

It comes down to a different set of rules for people in the public eye. If you have a "name" then you have to protect it at all times.

Exactly

And nice .gif too.

Isn't that the part when he gets pissed because he realizes Chris and Snoop weren't telling him about how Omar was calling him out in the streets?

 

[NoDak]

Whether it's landscaping, construction, insurance, or something as huge as a professional sporting league, business is business.

I noticed you mentioned landscaping first...



Wait. That's not racist, is it?

 

[Texas Ace]

I noticed you mentioned landscaping first...



Wait. That's not racist, is it?

I'm going to release this post in the local paper in North Dakota so that no one will want to conduct business with you.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

 

[dallen]

Exactly

And nice .gif too.

Isn't that the part when he gets pissed because he realizes Chris and Snoop weren't telling him about how Omar was calling him out in the streets?

Yeah

 

[Deuce]

I'm going to release this post in the local paper in North Dakota so that no one will want to conduct business with you.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

Unless he's calling people redskins, I think North Dakoatans won't give a shit.

 

[NoDak]

Unless he's calling people redskins, I think North Dakoatans won't give a shit.

We don't care about that, either.

In fact, we're still pissed they made us change our hockey team's name from UND Fighting Sioux.

Fuckers.

 

[data]

Rights and freedom go out the window if it affects money.

 

[Smitty]

You were the one sticking around, so your take means jack shit.

Actually, I'm just telling you the difference in facts, not giving you my take.

So your take on my take means jack shit.

 

[Smitty]

And I totally 100% agree that you shouldn't have to associate with people you don't want to.

However, that doesn't mean you can take away someone else's property.

As Carp helpfully pointed out, when EZ was offended by racism, he didn't sue sbk to give up control. He walked away himself.

Note the difference.

 

[Smitty]

NBA Fears Sterling Could File Suit Leading To Questioning If Other Owners Made Racist Remarks
May 01, 2014 6:56 PM EDT

There is a growing fear in NBA offices that Donald Sterling will file a lawsuit and begin to depose league and team personnel.

Sterling's attorneys could ask team personnel if their owner ever made remarks of a racist nature.

The NBA never attempted to oust Sterling as owner of the Clippers until his recorded racist comments surfaced, at least in part because of fears for how ligitious he has exhibited himself to be in the past.

Via Chris Mannix/Sports Illustrated

 

[Cotton]

While we are at it, let's investigate NFL owners as well.

 

[Deuce]

NBA Fears Sterling Could File Suit Leading To Questioning If Other Owners Made Racist Remarks
May 01, 2014 6:56 PM EDT

There is a growing fear in NBA offices that Donald Sterling will file a lawsuit and begin to depose league and team personnel.

Sterling's attorneys could ask team personnel if their owner ever made remarks of a racist nature.

The NBA never attempted to oust Sterling as owner of the Clippers until his recorded racist comments surfaced, at least in part because of fears for how ligitious he has exhibited himself to be in the past.

Via Chris Mannix/Sports Illustrated

The Orlando Sentinel wrote an article yesterday wondering if the NBA was going to look into other owners for their remarks. Magic Owner Rich De Voss has made comments numerous times about being anti-gay marriage. I don't remember specific quotes so I don't know if it went to the point to the point of flat out bigotry, but it's an interesting question.

 

[UncleMilti]

Yea, but you as a successful business owner know this probably better than all of us - people will not want to be publicly associated with you when something of this magnitude becomes public knowledge, regardless of how it came to be known.

So whether it was you or a potential business partner of yours, if word got out in the local news about either party making comments like this, I would imagine that you would hesitate to conduct business with that person/company and vice versa......am I right? Because you don't need the negative reputation hit on your business and neither do they.

Whether it's landscaping, construction, insurance, or something as huge as a professional sporting league, business is business and perception in the business world matters as does public opinion in the uber-politically correct era that we live in. So because of that, I don't really see the point of defending his right to basic freedom. Sucks for him that this side of him was exposed in the manner that it was, but it still warrants removing him from his position as owner of the team.

That's a great point, and one that I pointed out earlier. He will suffer the fallout of advertisers and promoters ditching him because of his statements. The fans wouldn't have come to the games. The players wouldn't want to play for him. He would have his own issues far greater than the NBA.

I'm only defending his right to free speech, which is directly tied to the NBA trying to strip him of his PROPERTY because of something he said. He's a racist, no doubt about it. His wife has a shitty history of it too.

If you achieve your dream of a business, would you want it taken away from you because of something you said in the privacy of your own home?

 

[UncleMilti]

NBA Fears Sterling Could File Suit Leading To Questioning If Other Owners Made Racist Remarks
May 01, 2014 6:56 PM EDT

There is a growing fear in NBA offices that Donald Sterling will file a lawsuit and begin to depose league and team personnel.

Sterling's attorneys could ask team personnel if their owner ever made remarks of a racist nature.

The NBA never attempted to oust Sterling as owner of the Clippers until his recorded racist comments surfaced, at least in part because of fears for how ligitious he has exhibited himself to be in the past.

Via Chris Mannix/Sports Illustrated

You called it. Anyone who thinks Sterling is going away quietly is in for a big surprise.

Sterling has been the only gay hating, black hating, racist comment-making owner in the NBA, ever...?


If anyone buys that, NoDak has a sunny beach in North Dakota he wants to sell them.

 

[Smitty]

That's a great point, and one that I pointed out earlier. He will suffer the fallout of advertisers and promoters ditching him because of his statements. The fans wouldn't have come to the games. The players wouldn't want to play for him. He would have his own issues far greater than the NBA.

I'm only defending his right to free speech, which is directly tied to the NBA trying to strip him of his PROPERTY because of something he said. He's a racist, no doubt about it. His wife has a shitty history of it too.

If you achieve your dream of a business, would you want it taken away from you because of something you said in the privacy of your own home?

This post should end the debate, but the thought police are out in force and do not tolerate dissension from their PC agenda. They'll stop at nothing, including taking away your property, to make you fall in line.

Though obviously "free speech" only protects Sterling's rights against government action, he still cannot be deprived of his property in contravention to the laws of the United States.

So like I said, no matter what little documents the NBA may have drawn up to bind themselves, we'll see what a court has to say about it.

Or, each side will litigate each other into exhaustion and Sterling will eventually relent because he doesn't want to pay to defend his rights anymore. We'll see.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Doesn't matter how they do it, the NBA has enough leverage to twist his arm very hard. When it comes right down to it, if you alienate your business partners and employees to the extent that none of them want to do business with you it will be very difficult for you to remain in that business.

I do think the secret recording in his own home thing is shitty. But it's like a sex scandal in that it's an invasion of privacy, but one that changes people's perception of you nonetheless.

 

[Texas Ace]

If you achieve your dream of a business, would you want it taken away from you because of something you said in the privacy of your own home?

Of course not, but being the owner of a restaurant or an art gallery is a whole lot different than being the owner of a professional sports team.

It's the old argument of how professional sports compares to regular jobs.....the fact is, they don't. You can't compare the two because they are nothing alike.

And being as athletes, coaches, and owners/GM's operate on a different set of rules, for better or worse (worse in this instance), we simply cannot use any real world stuff to compare it with.

If I say what he said as the owner of a bar, then maybe some people decide not to show up anymore and that's the end of it. But he's the owner of a pro sports team which also happens to be a very public business where how one conducts himself is one of the most important aspects of the "job". A black eye for you is a black eye for the league, and you know this when you come into that environment.

In other words, I believe they have full right to punish him the way they have regardless if what he said was in a private conversation. That conversation is no longer private, and for the sake and reputation of the entire league, they have to act accordingly and I think they've done that.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Of course not, but being the owner of a restaurant or an art gallery is a whole lot different than being the owner of a professional sports team.

It's the old argument of how professional sports compares to regular jobs.....the fact is, they don't. You can't compare the two because they are nothing alike.

And being as athletes, coaches, and owners/GM's operate on a different set of rules, for better or worse (worse in this instance), we simply cannot use any real world stuff to compare it with.

If I say what he said as the owner of a bar, then maybe some people decide not to show up anymore and that's the end of it. But he's the owner of a pro sports team which also happens to be a very public business where how one conducts himself is one of the most important aspects of the "job". A black eye for you is a black eye for the league, and you know this when you come into that environment.

In other words, I believe they have full right to punish him the way they have regardless if what he said was in a private conversation. That conversation is no longer private, and for the sake and reputation of the entire league, they have to act accordingly and I think they've done that.

Your position will gain a lot ground in the ethical and moral arena but in a legal setting not so much.

 

[Texas Ace]

Your position will gain a lot ground in the ethical and moral arena but in a legal setting not so much.

That may be true, but I'm not arguing about what I think is right or wrong from a legal perspective.

I'm just giving my opinion on why I believe the punishment was the appropriate one.