This is the World That We Live In

[HeaterCuse22]

I think the issue Moqui is concerned about is the taking of private property - but if you want to see where a slippery slope started, just look at that Sup. Ct. decision Justice Souter authored a few years ago where he justified the government taking someone's private property (lake front or ocean front, I forget) and justified giving it to another private party because they promised to develop it and generate tax dollars. That would be like Congel being given the land in the town of Salina where those 27 businesses are located that he wanted the town to take for him under eminent domain. Stuff like that is anti-American and anti-freedom, if the property you own can be taken from you just because somebody's pissed at you, or somebody offers the government a better deal.

Ehh, I'm not sure they are related.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

A former Celtic? NEVER.

I see what you are saying, but I still believe the NBA is protecting the brand and expects the owners to project a better image (or at least not project their true selves). That's all this comes down to, and I don't think there is a slippery slope here. You can't have an owner openly racist in a league with 70+% black players. I don't believe this extends to gay marriage values, or abortion, or any of the other politically charge topics we are facing these days. Just the race issue.

If he was on tape saying he would rather not have "gays" at his games, in one of the parts of the country that has a fairly high population of homosexuals...after openly discriminatoing against them years ago - then I do believe he would be facing very major penalties. But yes, the popluation of the league and the ability for them to quickly organize a walkout is the shift in power that creates the negative value. Imagine if all four teams did not play in protest last night as is being reported. Would they do that for homosexual bigotry, I doubt it, but the effects would be felt from the outside. See the aforementioned examples in this thread.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Grotto - I see you are trying to make a point, and I do believe you have some merit in your argument. But lets be clear he runs a business unit as part of a larger corporation, organization or association that his contributes value. I would think the board of directors is acting within their rights, using the racial/discriminatory "reason", as it is creating negative value to the larger organization. So its sort of both ways.

I'm not sure yet that I see any problem with what the NBA is doing right now exactly. His words and the fallout from what he said have unintentionally damaged the NBA. I am concerned about how they NBA is communicating things, and what precedents that may set.

 

[AZOrange]

I just heard something about another owner donating money to fight gay marriage. I guess since there is only one openly gay player this won't rise to the level that Sterling did, but we just don't know what will happen these days. Tough times to be a rich white guy who owns a basketball team I guess (SARCASM definitely intended).

This is the slippery slope...

 

[orangefan13]

There are bigger problems in the world.
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/04/30/twerking-incident-led-to-larger-crime/20878026/
j/k

 

[CuseFaninVT]

A former Celtic? NEVER.

I see what you are saying, but I still believe the NBA is protecting the brand and expects the owners to project a better image (or at least not project their true selves). That's all this comes down to, and I don't think there is a slippery slope here. You can't have an owner openly racist in a league with 70+% black players. I don't believe this extends to gay marriage values, or abortion, or any of the other politically charge topics we are facing these days. Just the race issue.

This is the slippery slope...

My reply above is why I don't actually believe this is a slippery slope.

 

[orange79]

Eh, I just like pretending I'm smart. And I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the quote, but mis-attributed quotes have always been a pet peeve of mine. It's like way Shakespeare say, "That sh** be cray-cray."

And at the end of the day, it comes down to this: Sterling has the right to say what he wants. But he has to deal with the consequences since he works for a private organization.

 

[Orangezoo]

At this juncture I want know how the hell we are 7 pages into this thread. It was a business decision that is still subject to some element of due process through an owner vote. Its no wonder we end up with some wacky politicians as much as we over analyze and how indecisive we are on something that should be put to bed and forgotten sooner rather than later.

 

[Millhouse]

Because we're not living in a pre-crime Minority Report society.

He said he didn't want his mistress coming to games with black men. Abhorrent on many levels, yes. But do we actually have evidence that he prevented someone from coming to Clippers games because of their race? I don't believe we do. I think that distinction matters.

you are way too into that movie

 

[DoctorBombay]

There are bigger problems in the world.
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/04/30/twerking-incident-led-to-larger-crime/20878026/
j/k

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

you are way too into that movie

Next to clowns, Minority Report and Gattaca freak me the Hell out.

 

[AirForceOrange]

I think the issue Moqui is concerned about is the taking of private property - but if you want to see where a slippery slope started, just look at that Sup. Ct. decision Justice Souter authored a few years ago where he justified the government taking someone's private property (lake front or ocean front, I forget) and justified giving it to another private party because they promised to develop it and generate tax dollars. That would be like Congel being given the land in the town of Salina where those 27 businesses are located that he wanted the town to take for him under eminent domain. Stuff like that is anti-American and anti-freedom, if the property you own can be taken from you just because somebody's pissed at you, or somebody offers the government a better deal.

Not even close to the same situation. Owning an NBA team is considered a privilege by the NBA and it's owners. Not a right. A privilege is something that can be take away should the owner of that privilege be deemed not worth of that privilege. Or another way to think about it is that Streling is/was a member of club, which the club happens to be the NBA and the owners the membership with privilege being to own an NBA team. When a member of the club violates or harms the other members of the club or the club as whole, then those other members have the right to vote him out.

What are you talking about concerns property rights and the morality/legality of taking property from one person and giving it to another, thus violating a right.

If owning an NBA team was right then moe people would own one. But for NBA owners it is privilege they have because they are wealthy enough to afford it.

I hope all that above makes sense.

 

[BludOrange]

If it was well known throughout the NBA for years that Sterling was a Class A and racist. Why did Rivers go there to coach? Or Paul and the well educated JJ Reddick sign to play for him? I don't like Sterling or condone his actions, but also don't like that people had no problem taking his money and looking past his racist ways until the public became enraged by his latest racist comments.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Not even close to the same situation. Owning an NBA team is considered a privilege by the NBA and it's owners. Not a right. A privilege is something that can be take away should the owner of that privilege be deemed not worth of that privilege. Or another way to think about it is that Streling is/was a member of club, which the club happens to be the NBA and the owners the membership with privilege being to own an NBA team. When a member of the club violates or harms the other members of the club or the club as whole, then those other members have the right to vote him out.

What are you talking about concerns property rights and the morality/legality of taking property from one person and giving it to another, thus violating a right.

If owning an NBA team was right then moe people would own one. But for NBA owners it is privilege they have because they are wealthy enough to afford it.

I hope all that above makes sense.

It's not whether anyone has a "right" to own an NBA team, per se, it's about once you own it, should you be forced to give it up. (Yes, I understand that the NBA is a private association and that makes this different. But if it wasn't a private club, then that raises some questions.)

 

[AirForceOrange]

It's not whether anyone has a "right" to own an NBA team, per se, it's about once you own it, should you be forced to give it up. (Yes, I understand that the NBA is a private association and that makes this different. But if it wasn't a private club, then that raises some questions.)

Doesn't really raise any questions for me...as it is a private club/association. We could post forever about various "if's", but the fact is that owning a team is not right, but a privilege and I have no problem with the other owners voting him out...they would be protecting their own business interests and brands and I could completely understand if they wanted to eliminate a potential/probable liability to their businesses/brands.

I am not naive enough to think these owners would vote him out due to some moral or ethical code/belief. They will vote him based off a purely business decision. This would be the same as a large corporation selling off a division that is a liability and a drain on income/profits.