Donald Sterling scandal

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-law-experts-donald-sterling-20140428,0,456471.story#axzz30Hxs0pJN

Donald Sterling scandal: Sports law experts weigh in



“This is uncharted territory with a new commissioner with a very complicated issue where we have private statements that became public,” Feldman said. “This is not a question about whether the comments are acceptable. I think we all agree they are unacceptable and abhorrent, but the issue becomes stickier because they were not made publicly. That does not excuse the comments, but it does raise the issue of whether owners have empowered the commissioner to punish an owner for comments made in private.”

My thoughts, too.

………


The NBA would have a better case for ridding itself of Sterling, McCann said, if sponsors severed ties with the Clippers and the league, hurting the league’s finances.

That’s the way to do it.

Should Shaq be bounced from his position on Inside the NBA for publicly, not privately, ridiculing the handicapped?



http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/25345293/mich-mans-selfie-mocked-by-celebrities-on-social-media?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=10093610#.U11-aHm4yhs.reddit

Mich. man's selfie mocked by celebrities on social media

Posted: Apr 25, 2014 5:01 PM CDT Updated: Apr 28, 2014 9:55 PM CD

Jahmel Binion of Madison Heights, Mich. has the rare disorder ectodermal dysplasia, a condition characterized by a reduced ability to sweat, missing teeth and abnormal hair growth.

He tells FOX 2's Randy Wimbley he's been getting teased his whole life, but never thought he'd be bullied by celebrities after posting a "selfie" on social media.

He says people began recognizing him from a picture on Shaquille O'Neal's Instagram account . Former
University of Michigan athlete Trey Burke and rapper Waka Flocka Flame are also said to have also joined in on the teasing.

The photo on Shaq's Instagram has been taken down.

Wimbley contacted Shaq via Twitter, officials with Burke's team, Utah Jazz, and Waka Flocka Flame's record label. No one responded.

Binion says this has inspired  him to start an anti-bullying campaign on Facebook called 'Hug Don't Judge.'

http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Welcome to the Finger-Wagging Olympics

It's time to look at ourselves — and our collective moral outrage — in the mirror, says former NBA player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


Moral outrage is exhausting. And dangerous. The whole country has gotten a severe case ofcarpal tunnel syndromefrom the newest popular sport of Extreme Finger Wagging. Not to mention the neck strain from Olympic tryouts for Morally Superior Head Shaking. All over the latest in a long line of rich white celebrities to come out of the racist closet. (Was it only a couple days ago that Cliven Bundy said blacks would be better off picking cotton as slaves? And only last June Paula Deen admitted using the “N” word?)
Yes, I’m angry, too, but not just about the sins of Donald Sterling. I’ve got a list. But let’s start with Sterling. I used to work for him, back in 2000 when I coached for the Clippers for three months. He was congenial, even inviting me to his daughter’s wedding. Nothing happened or was said to indicate he suffered from IPMS (Irritable Plantation Master Syndrome). Since then, a lot has been revealed about Sterling’s business practices:
• 2006: U.S. Dept. of Justice sued Sterling for housing discrimination. Allegedly, he said, “Black tenants smell and attract vermin.”
• 2009: He reportedly paid $2.73 million in a Justice Dept. suit alleging he discriminated against blacks, Hispanics, and families with children in his rentals. (He also had to pay an additional nearly $5 million in attorneys fees and costs due to his counsel’s “sometimes outrageous conduct.”)
• 2009: Clippers executive (and one of the greatest NBA players in history) sued for employment discrimination based on age and race.
And now the poor guy’s girlfriend (undoubtedly ex-girlfriend now) is on tape cajoling him into revealing his racism. Man, what a winding road she led him down to get all of that out. She was like a sexy nanny playing “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo.” She blindfolded him and spun him around until he was just blathering all sorts of incoherent racist sound bites that had the news media peeing themselves with glee.
They caught big game on a slow news day, so they put his head on a pike, dubbed him Lord of the Flies, and danced around him whooping.
I don’t blame them. I’m doing some whooping right now. Racists deserve to be paraded around the modern town square of the television screen so that the rest of us who believe in the American ideals of equality can be reminded that racism is still a disease that we haven’t yet licked.
What bothers me about this whole Donald Sterling affair isn’t just his racism. I’m bothered that everyone acts as if it’s a huge surprise. Now there’s all this dramatic and very public rending of clothing about whether they should keep their expensive Clippers season tickets. Really? All this other stuff I listed above has been going on for years and this ridiculous conversation with his girlfriend is what puts you over the edge? That’s the smoking gun?
He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing. Suddenly he says he doesn’t want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn’t we have all called for his resignation back then?
Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.
Make no mistake: Donald Sterling is the villain of this story. But he’s just a handmaiden to the bigger evil. In our quest for social justice, we shouldn’t lose sight that racism is the true enemy. He’s just another jerk with more money than brains.
So, if we’re all going to be outraged, let’s be outraged that we weren’t more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let’s be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let’s be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars.
The big question is “What should be done next?” I hope Sterling loses his franchise. I hope whoever made this illegal tape is sent to prison. I hope the Clippers continue to be unconditionally supported by their fans. I hope the Clippers realize that the ramblings of an 80-year-old man jealous of his young girlfriend don’t define who they are as individual players or as a team. They aren’t playing for Sterling—they’re playing for themselves, for the fans, for showing the world that neither basketball, nor our American ideals, are defined by a few pathetic men or women.
Let’s use this tawdry incident to remind ourselves of the old saying: “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” Instead of being content to punish Sterling and go back to sleep, we need to be inspired to vigilantly seek out, expose, and eliminate racism at its first signs.

N.B.A. Bars Clippers Owner Donald Sterling for Life

Quote :

Donald Sterling, the longtime owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, was barred from the N.B.A. for life and fined $2.5 million by the league’s commissioner, Adam Silver, on Tuesday for making racist remarks. Silver said that Sterling would be barred from any contact with his team and the league and that he would urge the league’s board of governors to force Sterling to sell the team.

The fine, Silver said, was the maximum allowed by the league’s constitution.

“The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful,” Silver said. “We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling’s views. They simply have no place in the N.B.A.”

Silver said Sterling, in an interview, had admitted to him that the racist remarks on a recording released last week by the website TMZ were his. Silver said he would “do everything in my power” to see that Sterling was forced to sell the Clippers. “I fully expect to get the support I need to remove him,” Silver said.

Good riddance!

Naturally during the follow-up questions from the press the Fox News meat puppet tried to make the point that it was a "private conversation".  I'm sure in the coming days we'll here the usual loony tune rants that the "liberal media" was the problem and that somehow the whole thing is Obama's fault due to what happened in Benghazi 

Artie60438 wrote:

 I'm sure in the coming days we'll here the usual loony tune rants that the "liberal media" was the problem and that somehow the whole thing is Obama's fault due to what happened in Benghazi 

Yep.
The bloated drug addicted leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh already did trying to make this a political issue. And as usual the slug proved yet again he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Quote :

Rush Limbaugh: Donald Sterling ‘typical’ Democrat

By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 4/28/14

Rush Limbaugh called Donald Sterling a “typical Hollywood Democrat” and said he is only getting flak for his statements on race because he didn’t donate enough money to President Barack Obama.

On his radio program Monday, Limbaugh said the Clippers owner’s views on race had been well-known for several years and that a lot of the outrage of his recent comments on race is “phony.”

“This guy is a big Democrat. The only reason he’s in trouble right now is he did not give enough money to Obama. This guy was gonna get a leadership award from the NAACP L.A. chapter. The second one. This guy is a typically Hollywood Democrat.”


A Los Angeles Times columnist and Mother Jones have reported that Sterling has been a registered Republican since 1998, according to a Los Angeles County Registrar


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/rush-limbaugh-donald-sterling-106104.html#ixzz30IwTDUvt

happy jack wrote:

The NBA has established itself as a clear and vocal supporter of racial tolerance and purports to not tolerate those who make racist statements, even statements made in private. It has barred one of its owners for life from having any contact with the NBA, and has fined him heavily for privately making racist statements.

Yep.
So do you support the NBA for doing this?

Quote :

Some hypothetical questions:
Were the NBA a clear and vocal supporter of pro-life issues..

Comparing or equating a blatant racist to anybody who is pro or anti gay marraige, pro life, pro choice or anti gun control is absurd and ridiculous.

Nice try....and get some ice.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

The NBA has established itself as a clear and vocal supporter of racial tolerance and purports to not tolerate those who make racist statements, even statements made in private. It has barred one of its owners for life from having any contact with the NBA, and has fined him heavily for privately making racist statements.

Yep.
So do you support the NBA for doing this?

Quote :

Some hypothetical questions:
Were the NBA a clear and vocal supporter of pro-life issues..

Comparing or equating a blatant racist to anybody who is pro or anti gay marraige, pro life, pro choice or anti gun control is absurd and ridiculous.

Nice try....and get some ice.

Edge +1
Lazy Troll 0

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

The NBA has established itself as a clear and vocal supporter of racial tolerance and purports to not tolerate those who make racist statements, even statements made in private. It has barred one of its owners for life from having any contact with the NBA, and has fined him heavily for privately making racist statements.

Yep.
So do you support the NBA for doing this?

Quote :

Some hypothetical questions:
Were the NBA a clear and vocal supporter of pro-life issues..

Comparing or equating a blatant racist to anybody who is pro or anti gay marraige, pro life, pro choice or anti gun control is absurd and ridiculous.

Nice try....and get some ice.

Edge +1
Lazy Troll 0

The flaming eunuch, who as we all know has been unable to confront me directly since the Zimmerman verdict was read, has once again chosen to hide behind the skirts in order to address my post.

I started ignoring you way before the verdict but if you want to keep clinging to that lie,be my guest.

Clueless troll wrote:

The flaming eunuch appears to be of the mind that edge somehow won the debate by refusing to engage in the debate.

There is no debate you fucking idiot. All your idiotic examples have nothing to do whatsoever with NBA rules or by-laws.

By posting those incredibly ridiculous what if scenarios,all you did is prove ONE thing.......

That you don't have a fucking clue as to what racism actually is or what it entails.

If you truly want to argue that nonsense I suggest you find a friendly crowd of racists like the stormfront site or Fox nation where currently 78% of the doorstops polled there think Sterling should be able to keep the franchise.
 [/b]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

 
I started ignoring you way before the verdict but if you want to keep clinging to that lie,be my guest.

What lie would that be?

This one jagoff...

Verified Liar wrote:

The flaming eunuch, who as we all know has been unable to confront me directly since the Zimmerman verdict was read, has once again chosen to hide behind the skirts in order to address my post.

Zimmerman verdict came on July 13,2013
Subject: Re: Trayvon Martin Death Investigation   Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:41 am

Artie60438 wrote:

I'm sick and tired of you trying to re-litigate arguments that you were proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to have lost. You're a sick fucking troll and I'm through replying to you.

You're even too stupid to remember that you previously tried this lie and ended up looking like a fool,aren't you?  

 

happy jack wrote:

Yes, I do support the NBA in this case.

Great, me too.

Quote :

It is well within the realm of its operators to establish their own organizational philosophy and to insist that its members adhere to it. So, do you respect the right of a private organization to insist that its members adhere to its philosophy?

Yes.

Quote :

If so, you should be able to answer my questions.

I don't waste time answering stupid hypothetical questions based on your idiotic fantasies.  
If an NBA owner made known public his views on gay marriage, abortion or gun laws, it would not be an issue with the NBA. Why would it be? Why would the NBA be concerned about gay marriage, abortion or gun laws?
Like I said:
Comparing or equating a blatant racist to anybody who is pro or anti gay marraige, pro life, pro choice or anti gun control is absurd and ridiculous.

Meanwhile on Bullshit Mountain, they're feeling sorry for Donald Sterling and making him the poor victim who's getting everything taken away from him.

Megyn Kelly who's supposed be a genius whined that Mr. Sterling's livelihood was being taken away from him. Yeah really, no kidding.
Allen West tried to make it a political issue by conflating what Sterling said to democracts.

Quote :

MEGYN KELLY: The question tonight: No one is defending the remarks. Nobody is defending the remarks. The question is whether the deprivation of his property rights, in terms of his ownership rights of a sports team, you know, his financial livelihood, and the swift condemnation by every corner, basically taking away his livelihood, is a slippery slope, as Mark Cuban suggested.
His livelihood? Donald Sterling is one of the thousand richest men in the world, with a net worth of $1.9 billion. If he's forced to sell the Clippers, he's selling a team he bought for $12 million in 1981 and that's now valued at $575 billion, with some speculating that its price tag could be $1 billion. His livelihood? Seriously, Megyn?

KELLY: ... is this the future of America, where private conversations between two people who are supposedly in a relationship wind up going public and then somebody who makes clearly inappropriate remarks, to put it charitably, has everything taken away from him?

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2014/04/so-i-guess-no-one-on-right-is-comparing.html

Megyn is about as bright as Sarah Palin.

happy jack wrote:

My questions are simply questions, not fantasies.

No, they are simply stupid questions based on fantasies that I don't waste time on. So sorry.

happy jack wrote:

If an employee of Hobby Lobby were to be secretly recorded coming out in favor of the homosexual agenda, and that recording were to be made public, causing that employee to be dismissed based upon his views on homosexuality, whose side would you take?
Would you support Hobby Lobby for exercising its right as a private organization to insist that its members adhere to its philosophy?
Or would you support the employee who was dismissed for holding views counter to the organization?

Obviously you're not aware of those pesky anti-discrimination laws, I'm not surprised.
See if you can figure out my answer by reading this:

Quote :

What You Can't Fire Someone For


by Rebecca Berlin

Under the employment-at-will doctrine, an employer can generally fire an employee for any reason or for no reason at all. However, there are some things that an employer can't fire an employee for. Employers cannot fire employees for reasons that would violate anti-discrimination laws. (For more information on employment discrimination laws read the article, "Employment Discrimination Laws You Should Be Aware Of".) An employer also cannot fire an employee for reasons that would violate public policy. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee because that employee turned the employer in for violating the law.

There are several anti-discrimination laws that prevent employers from being able to fire employees for discriminatory reasons. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. When it comes to firing employees, this means that you can't terminate an employee for any reason that would indicate that you are discriminating against the employee on the basis of one of these factors. One obvious example: you can't ask an employee out on a date and then fire him or her for declining your invitation. The problem is, if you fire the employee for some other reason, this conduct on your part clouds the issue.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age. You might need to worry if you fire an older worker and replace him or her with a younger worker. You need to be able to show that there was another reason that you fired the employee or it could very well look like age discrimination.

As an employer, you may think that you would never fire someone for a discriminatory reason. The real problem is if you can't prove that you fired someone for a valid reason, it may look like you did fire the person for a discriminatory reason. This is why it is especially important for employers to keep good records and documentation of any employee problems.

Employers cannot fire employees for reasons that violate public policy. For example, employers cannot fire employees who are "whistle blowers". These are employees who turn their employers in for violating certain laws. The government wants employees to be able to report business activities that are illegal without being afraid of losing their jobs. If an employee claims that your business is violating some law, you need to investigate the claim without taking any action against the employee. Another example: an employer can't fire an employee because that employee filed a workers compensation claim. Worker's compensation laws and worker's compensation insurance exist to protect workers who are injured on the job. This public policy would be thwarted if employees were afraid to file claims because they might lose their jobs.

As an employer, you are going to run into trouble when you want to fire an employee for a valid reason, but, due to a lack of proper documentation, it looks like you are firing an employee for an illegal reason. To prevent this, be sure to engage in consistent procedures for documenting employee problems.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/employment/article21.asp

 You can look at this too:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm


It all looks pretty much cut-and-dried to me.

Nice red herring.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

 
I started ignoring you way before the verdict but if you want to keep clinging to that lie,be my guest.

What lie would that be?

This one jagoff...

Verified Liar wrote:

The flaming eunuch, who as we all know has been unable to confront me directly since the Zimmerman verdict was read, has once again chosen to hide behind the skirts in order to address my post.

[b]One problem - that is not a lie. It is true.

I have proved several times and once again in this very thread that the Zimmerman verdict had nothing to do with my decision to ignore you. My decision was made and you were notified 2 full weeks before the end of the Zimmerman trial.

I also gave you fair warning for weeks  before that, that if you continued to operate like a troll that I would ultimately decide to ignore you.

Do you realize that I now have the best of both worlds?

I still get to make a fool out of your ignorant thoughts while avoiding almost all interaction with you

Awesome,right?

You OTOH,seem to be quite annoyed that I have taken this path.  

You can always tell when an internet troll gets beat at their own game. They immediately make ridiculous claims about that poster's sexuality as if to infer that the target is somehow less than others. It's the sexuality version of Godwin's law. Lose an argument and then claim someone is a eunuch,homo,etc.
That too amuses me as I'm sure it does other contributors here. So keep up the good work yamhead.

happy jack wrote:

There’s nothing at all cut-and-dried about it. In fact, edge, your article is entirely irrelevant to the situation we’re discussing. The hypothetical Hobby Lobby employee was not dismissed on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin. The employee was dismissed due to the discovery of a recording of the employee’s private conversation, in which the employee failed to adhere to his company’s organizational philosophy.

Which is accoding to YOU this religious philosophy:
"Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." The company supports the conservative Alliance DEFENSE FUND, which established the Day of Truth "to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda."

The employee can not be fired because he/she failed to adhere to his company’s "organizational RELIGIOUS philosophy."
It would be discrimination based on religion which is against the law.


That's means you're full shit or just plain ignorant....or both.

happy jack wrote:

So, once again: Does your respect for the right of an organization to insist that its members adhere to its philosophy extend to a company such as, in this case, Hobby Lobby?

Yes, when comes to blatant racism and not religion as in your bullshit  hypothetical example.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Verified Liar wrote:

The flaming eunuch, who as we all know has been unable to confront me directly since the Zimmerman verdict was read, has once again chosen to hide behind the skirts in order to address my post.

One problem - that is not a lie. It is true.

If you are going to accuse me of lying, please do me the courtesy of demonstrating how I lied. In this case, it would be a simple case of providing even one post in which you addressed me directly between the Zimmerman verdict and the exchange we began last night.
That's all I ask.

Yeah. You see, Artie? He's not lying, because even though you started ignoring him before the verdict, it is also true that you have ignored him since the verdict. Why that is relevant is beyond me. But it's undeniably true.