• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is being racist a right?[W:343]

Is being racist a right


  • Total voters
    80
Something about he doesn't have a right to own a team. Geez bud, I tried to compliment you for your honesty and you have a cow. WTF

He has the right to "own a team" in the same way John in New York has a right to "Work at McDonalds".

He's able to do so. But the corporation is under no obligation to hire either of them, or keep either of them employed, unless it's some part of binding contract.

Sterling owned a Franchise within a larger business. As part of his agreement governing his ownership of said franchise, he agreed that he could be removed from owning that portion of the larger business if a percentage of his business partners voted in a particular way.

He does not have a "right" to be exempt from his businesses rules and regulations. No more than an employee that a boss wants to fire has a "right" to be exempt from his businesses rules and regulations.

Donald Sterling was the owner of the Clippers, but the Clippers were one of 30 franchises under the overall business of the National Basketball Association.
 
I think my statement on this was perfectly clear and you are just pretending not to get it. Read it again.

Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon
Condemning someone is one thing, calling for them to be punished is quite another. One is expressing your opinion while the other is demanding there be punishment for an opinion you disagree with.

Right, so you think they are two seperate things. I'm acknowledging you feel that way.

I ask again.

Do you think people should not be allowed to demand punishment for an opinion they disagree with?
 
Of course a person has the right to be a racist. No, there should be no state punishment for voicing your belief. However, those people who hear your belief are free, and they have the right to choose not to do business with you (i.e. boycott) and sponsors who do business with you (pay you money to have their company name on a banner in your business) have the right to pull their advertising and do business with someone else (or nobody else). Without the ad revenue your sponsors used to provide, and without the ticket sales from your fans, you could be bankrupt quickly and that is all within the rights of the fans and sponsors. While you have the right to your opinions and nobody can DEMAND punishment from the govt., individuals have the right to run away from your business and the business could then fail in the free market, and that is fair.
 
Stifling free speech is the same as burning books.

This is great, except that didn't happen here. I do not see any government prosecution (or any force level threat as a libertarian would define force) of the guy and that is REQUIRED for the stifling of free speech.

Economic repercussions or societal shunning is not the stiflement of free speech, thats just people having differing opinions.

There is a huge and obvious line of demarcation here.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't.

Depends what he means.

If he means it "crosses a line" of what he believes to be ethically or morally reasonable, then he's well within his right to believe that it crosses a line to him.

If he means it "crosses a line" of what is constitutionally or legally allowable, or that it crosses some kind of universal line of morality, then he's absolutely incorrect.
 
Yes I said you libs in your fondest dreams would like to make racism illegal but as of now it is not and I never said it was.

Which is, of course, a crock, but that's never stopped you before.
 
Ain't there already a similar thread on this subject? This could be a chip off the old crock.
 
HUH? One is thought the other is action. Apples oranges.

Rights and freedoms are the same whether they are thought, actions or whatever. You cannot uphold one right to just turn around and deny another, simply because the other is an action instead of a thought/speech.

If you fear being drug over the coals for what you say then you fear to say what you think. Kinda like living in Cuba or Nazi Germany or the USSR. Is that really the America you want?

Not really. The fear of an oppressive government coming to take me away and imprison me or kill me for my thoughts and expression is far greater than anything my fellow citizens can do to me under what we have here in the US. The differences between what the government can do and what other citizens can do in respons to the expression of your opinions are the apples and oranges in this case.

I don't see the right to own a team listed in the constitution.

Technically it is in there in the right to own property. But as I have always said a right to something does not constitute the requirement that someone gives it to you. So the right to own the team (or anything else ownable) is dependant upon the ability to obtain it. The right remains even if one cannot obtain it.

I think my statement on this was perfectly clear and you are just pretending not to get it. Read it again.

Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon
Condemning someone is one thing, calling for them to be punished is quite another. One is expressing your opinion while the other is demanding there be punishment for an opinion you disagree with.

Key word: think. Just because it is clear to you and even to those with whom you converse and deal with regularly, does not mean it will be clear to everyone.
 
My opinion has never changed since the moment I formulated it.

Prejudice is not a sin, discrimination is.

I myself am prejudiced, but I never discriminate. Am I a wrong person? Do I deserve punishment?
 
Technically it is in there in the right to own property. But as I have always said a right to something does not constitute the requirement that someone gives it to you. So the right to own the team (or anything else ownable) is dependant upon the ability to obtain it. The right remains even if one cannot obtain it.
He is a franchise holder. True he may own the team but he doesn't own the NBA. That is the franchise name he made an agreement to own the team. It's like if a McDonald's owner decided to change the menu, alterthe color scheme and do things out side of the franchise agreement the corporate owner of the name can strip his title from the owner of the individual franchise. Since owning a team is only owning a name (you can't own the players) I think they can take it back. The constitution only says the government can't intervene.
 
He is a franchise holder. True he may own the team but he doesn't own the NBA. That is the franchise name he made an agreement to own the team. It's like if a McDonald's owner decided to change the menu, alterthe color scheme and do things out side of the franchise agreement the corporate owner of the name can strip his title from the owner of the individual franchise. Since owning a team is only owning a name (you can't own the players) I think they can take it back. The constitution only says the government can't intervene.

Even so his right to own it is still intact. Simply because he has entered into a contract and that contract has stipulations as to how his ownership can be revoked does not affect his rightto ownership. Additionally I believe that the government can actually interfere in the affairs of the various sports leagues as at least some are legal monopolies. But that is hazy recall, so I am quite willing to be corrected.
 
I think my statement on this was perfectly clear and you are just pretending not to get it. Read it again.

Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon
Condemning someone is one thing, calling for them to be punished is quite another. One is expressing your opinion while the other is demanding there be punishment for an opinion you disagree with.

Asking him to sell the team and paying a fine may be in their right, depending on the contract under which he purchased the team and entered the league, right? I don't know, never bought a team, but I have signed a few purchasing agreements and have been employed at various places, etc.
The man is a racist, has a right to his racism and his opinion, and others have the right to agree or disagree with him.
But just as many were called to boycott stores for not wishing a 'Merry Christmas', we have a right to boycott a franchise or anything that has to do with this man.
Again, he has a right to free speech, and I am appalled about denying him his right. I also find it a bit strange that a racist like Ms Winfrey considers purchasing the team, and that other racists stand on 'the other side' making racist remarks far worse and offensive, and nobody finds fault.
But we have to separate these issues. This man has a right to own a business, but perhaps not this one if the contract he signed stipulates otherwise.
 
Even so his right to own it is still intact. Simply because he has entered into a contract and that contract has stipulations as to how his ownership can be revoked does not affect his rightto ownership. Additionally I believe that the government can actually interfere in the affairs of the various sports leagues as at least some are legal monopolies. But that is hazy recall, so I am quite willing to be corrected.

Didn't see this., promise.
 
I think the guy is well within his rights to be racist if he wants. I also don't believe he should be forced to sell his team (which he's said he won't do). From what I understand, the NBA has no by-laws that regulate the speech of any owner. The commissioner may have over stepped his bounds with the lifetime ban. Any lawyer worth his salt will most likely carve the NBA up on this. I have heard numerous legal analysts say (on ESPN radio) that while the NBA was right in doing what it did, the legal ramifications could get ugly IF Sterling decides to fight it. I'm interested to see if he does. IMO, the dude should be able to say whatever he feels like saying.

He obviously doesn't allow it to affect his decisions with the team. He was the second NBA team owner in league history to have a black General Manager (Elgin Baylor), he just let a successful white coach's contract expire (Vinny Del Negro) and hired a black coach for this season (Doc Rivers), the majority of his team is black, he was nominated for an award from the NAACP, etc, etc. I say all that to show that the NBA, while having a recording of him saying racist things, has nothing else to use against him as far as proving his dealings with the team were of a racist nature. We'll see what the legal system does with it. It could get ugly if Sterling wants to fight.

I rest my case:
NBA Lacks the Authority To Force Donald Sterling To Sell the Clippers | FOX Sports on MSN

The dude ain't selling and there's nothing they can do about it
 
except whoops this guy doesn't know what the Constitution says and that is the key.
Explain. I don't see where Sterling violated the Constitution. He can say what he wants. As I explained in the previous post, his apparent racist beliefs never affected his actual business decisions involving the team. This is evidenced by the fact that he employed only the second black GM, currently employs a black coach, employs a mostly black team, etc, etc.
 
Right, so you think they are two seperate things. I'm acknowledging you feel that way.

I ask again.

Do you think people should not be allowed to demand punishment for an opinion they disagree with?

You should be allowed to say or think anything you want and I think demanding punishment for people you disagree with makes you a fascist moron.
 
In any oppressive fascist country people are punished for opinions that are not accepted. You seem to want a fascist America, I don't.

By the government they are punished. Huge difference.
 
You should be allowed to say or think anything you want and I think demanding punishment for people you disagree with makes you a fascist moron.

Demanding punishment is a part of being able to say or think what you want. Or, is that only applicable when someone says despicable things?
 
Depends what he means.

If he means it "crosses a line" of what he believes to be ethically or morally reasonable, then he's well within his right to believe that it crosses a line to him.

If he means it "crosses a line" of what is constitutionally or legally allowable, or that it crosses some kind of universal line of morality, then he's absolutely incorrect.

Door number 1
 
In Nazi Germany the general public looted and ransacked Jew owned businesses and you are on the same path here.

No one is looting or ransacking. We are simply using our free speech; something you don't seem to like all that much.
 
Back
Top Bottom