Donald Sterling "Punished"?

[bookslover]

Regarding Sterling's NBA "punishment": (1) a $2,500,000 fine? He's a billionaire - he'll cut that check and not even blink. (2) a lifetime ban? The man's 80 - so what is that "lifetime" ban really worth? (3) possibly being forced to sell the team? If he does - that just means another major payday for him.

Hard to see how he's being "punished"...

UPDATE: OK, now I'll bet Sterling feels punished: some guy who owns six brothels in Nevada says he's banning Sterling for life. So, there's that...

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Donald Sterling banned for life for being a moron in the privacy of his home, meanwhile in America.........baby murderers, fornicators, and blasphemers continue to enjoy the undying love and affection of the American media.

 

[VictorBravo]

Donald Sterling banned for life for being a moron in the privacy of his home, meanwhile in America.........baby murderers, fornicators, and blasphemers continue to enjoy the undying love and affection of the American media.

Pretty much my thoughts, too. He said stupid things he thought were private. Now the rest of culture can satisfy their need to impose righteous judgment on the man.

It makes me nervous to see such piling on--how many of his accusers could stand up to scrutiny over every private word?

Not that I like the guy--exactly the opposite. It just seems so obvious that even secular culture needs a scapegoat--everyone knows there is a judgment, and perhaps by heaping coals on someone else, we might evade it, or at least not have to think about it for a little while longer.

 

[Justified]

 

[jwithnell]

The whole situation makes me quite nervous. The guy is rude, but the US Constitution protects the right for a person to say or write something rude, particularly in a private situation when the words cannot be misconstrued as a false alarm or threat.

 

[Marcus417]

The whole situation makes me quite nervous. The guy is rude, but the US Constitution protects the right for a person to say or write something rude, particularly in a private situation when the words cannot be misconstrued as a false alarm or threat.

This is actually false. The constitution protects our right to say what we want and protects us from government persecution. "Congress shall make no law." It does not protect us from the consequences others might impose on us due to the stupid stuff we say. The NBA and its other owners have freedom to not associate with Sterling or do business with him if they chose just like Sterling has the freedom to say what he wants.

Here is a similar example (its overexaggerated for teaching purposes)
A person works at Christian bookstore
The same person in his private time burns Bibles
This same person's girlfriend films doing this private free speech protected activity and posts it on youtube
The Christian Bookstore has the right to exercise its freedom in firing that person even though he did not break a law or burn the Bibles in public.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Yes, but how can the NBA impose a 2.5 million dollar fine on anyone. The're not a government agency. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out from a legal perspective. The actions taken by the NBA have far-reaching legal implications. A man makes morally objectionable comments in a private conversation in his home that are recorded secretly and illegally and subsequently published to the media after which a the NBA sets out to make a public example of him. For me this all goes back to the distinction between what's immoral and what's illegal.

 

[ZackF]

Marge Schott could make this guy sound like a choir boy. People just left her alone in the stands to be angry and smoke...maybe pose for the occasional photo.

 

[ZackF]

Yes, but how can the NBA impose a 2.5 million dollar fine on anyone. The're not a government agency. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out from a legal perspective. The actions taken by the NBA have far-reaching legal implications. A man makes morally objectionable comments in a private conversation in his home that are recorded secretly and illegally and subsequently published to the media after which a the NBA sets out to make a public example of him. For me this all goes back to the distinction between what's immoral and what's illegal.

The government can enforce the fine.

 

[Marcus417]

Yes, but how can the NBA impose a 2.5 million dollar fine on anyone. The're not a government agency. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out from a legal perspective. The actions taken by the NBA have far-reaching legal implications. A man makes morally objectionable comments in a private conversation in his home that are recorded secretly and illegally and subsequently published to the media after which a the NBA sets out to make a public example of him. For me this all goes back to the distinction between what's immoral and what's illegal.

When a player, owner, coach, or any other employee of the NBA or any sports franchise signs their contract they agree to be fined based on the rules of the collective bargaining agreement between the Players Union and the Owners. The maximum fine that was agreed to beforehand was 2.5 million and he was hit with the max penalty. He signed a contract saying he would pay a fine deemed appropriate by the commissioner if he broke league rules. The rule he broke was "Conduct detrimental to the league."

 

[Claudiu]

I'm not racist, but the thought police are out. You can't even think an "evil" thought (from their perspective) or else the thought police will get you.

 

[VictorBravo]

The rule he broke was "Conduct detrimental to the league."

Of course that is right. The NBA is a franchise organization, as far as I know.

But, the mass hysteria is a warning. I can imagine a franchise owner who has signed a contract with a similar clause being punished for saying something to his family along the lines of: "gay marriage is an abomination," and then having his young child repeat what he has said in school.

"Conduct detrimental to the franchise...." Kick him out.

Pretty interesting times when agendas and private bad behavior can be enforced through social media and shunning like we have never seen before.

 

[augustacarguy]

Donald Sterling banned for life for being a moron in the privacy of his home, meanwhile in America.........baby murderers, fornicators, and blasphemers continue to enjoy the undying love and affection of the American media.

Agreed.

 

[Andres]

I don't understand where most of you are coming from. What's the problem with Sterling being fined by his private company for doing something wrong? My employer has social media policies that limit what I can say/post in social media. I choose to abide by their policies because I want to work here. No big deal. And since when is racism to be given a pass anyway? It's certainly an evil in our society, so I'm glad to hear that people are reacting and opposing Sterling's hateful ways, which he has a long history of, btw.

 

[VictorBravo]

My employer has social media policies that limit what I can say/post in social media.

My point is that he did not post this on social media, someone else did.

I have no problem with contractual or social sanction for bad behavior. I'm just observing the remarkable frenzy that is occurring over this, but not other overt bad behavior.

I think he should have been fined for his adultery, for example, because it was open and public.

 

[Andres]

I have no problem with contractual or social sanction for bad behavior.

Is this not exactly what happened? (See post #11)

I'm just observing the remarkable frenzy that is occurring over this, but not other overt bad behavior.

So you're surprised that the media only reports on that which is sensationalized, rather than being completely objective?!! And again, racism is sinful and should be opposed so I'm all for anyone decrying it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Andrew,
The point is to take accurate note of who is defining "sin" in the culture today. This dude finally sinned-to-the-max according to the PC Police, in a very public way; nevermind that he was openly consorting with his (backstabbing) GF. *That* was no-problemo to the elites, as was his ability to maintain "plausible deniability" about his Plantation mindset previously, when he was rubbing shoulders with NBA execs and owners in the private LUX-BOX suite at the arena. A number of his peers who will likely give him the boot are going to play the hypocrite.

And before we Christians happily jump aboard the latest-thought-crime bandwagon, and "pile-on" the latest PC-victim, we should be fully conscious that the next schlep may be another BrendanEich(Mozilla).

We need to defend our own rights to hold unpopular opinions without being thrown to the lions of the day, and we do that best when we (even as Christians) offer a brief for the 1st Amendment: "I disagree vehemently with your opinion, but will vehemently defend your right to say it."

By the rules of the game he signed, he should button his lip, and pay his fine, sell out, and walk away an octogenarian billionaire who still can't take it with him. And he may decide to spend a good bit of someone's inheritance on obnoxious litigation. That's also his Constitutional right.

Do we as Christians need to line up behind the rock-throwers, when next week those very same hurlers will turn and have orthodox believers in their sights?

 

[Andres]

And before we Christians happily jump aboard the latest-thought-crime bandwagon, and "pile-on" the latest PC-victim, we should be fully conscious that the next schlep may be another BrendanEich(Mozilla).

Do we as Christians need to line up behind the rock-throwers, when next week those very same hurlers will turn and have orthodox believers in their sights?

See this is the thing I take issue with - the Sterling situation is being made out by many, and regrettably many on this board it seems, to be an overreaction by the media and the NBA. No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public. This story is a big deal so lets not make it out to be an overreaction. To say we must defend a person's rights over their sins seems like a very R2k type thing to say so I'm struggling to understand this.

 

[VictorBravo]

No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public.

I'd hope we'd be a bit more circumspect than this. Somewhere in our 9th commandment duties is an obligation to avoid promoting exposure of every private sin. I think that includes cheering on others who expose it.

I grant racism is a sin. Nobody is willing to publicly defend it--I'm not even trying. But should we rejoice in the exposure and publication of someone who privately sins this paticular sin? Especially when we remain silent about his open and notorious sins? He is deemed a disgrace to his league only because of bad words said in private.

Nobody cares about his open and public bad conduct? (not just adultery, but general disrespect for agreements and duties, etc.)

In our culture it appears to be close to the unpardonable sin. We now can congratulate ourselves on how we can effectively and universally hate a detestable man who says detestable things to his girlfriend. We are indeed progressive.

But does the punishment fit the actual negative effect of the private sin? Why should someone almost lose an empire over this particular sin (thinking of Paula Deen), and not another, more public sin?

And, repeating what I mentioned before, homophobia is skyrocketing to the top of the list of our culture's ultimate sins. I imagine it will be equal to racism for censure in a few more months. This technique of privately sanctioning behavior will remain a threat to even little people hanging on to jobs or businesses.

 

[moral necessity]

What happened to their cry for "toleration"?
We are told to tolerate the gay basketball player, but they won't tolerate the racist.

 

[Tyrese]

Lets look at it this way: Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man sitting next to a I don't know 20 something year old women and not with his wife. I think there's bigger problems with this man than what he thinks about black people.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A person should not be characterized by their worst mistake

There appears is a tendency for progressives to law down a liberal Mosaic law of their own, complete with a politically correct stoning. They insist they want seperation of religous fervor for a world view from policies but by thier actions seem to show they don't mind a religion substitute
Chic Fil E appeared to get up after their 'stoning' and carried on

 

[whirlingmerc]

In part there's a religions view replacement by some secular views, secular views held with religious fervor, going on

I was listening to Bruce Watke on Ps 73 yesterday and he pointed out that in the French revolution they moved to 'free themselves' from the church but soon after appointed Napoleon as their emperor with disastrous results

 

[ZackF]

And, repeating what I mentioned before, homophobia is skyrocketing to the top of the list of our culture's ultimate sins. I imagine it will be equal to racism for censure in a few more months. This technique of privately sanctioning behavior will remain a threat to even little people hanging on to jobs or businesses.

You're right. I wrote about this on another thread.

Furthermore, I also think all of the sappy public mourning when some, usually debauched, celebrity dies. People line the streets to ball their eyes out for a complete stranger.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

And before we Christians happily jump aboard the latest-thought-crime bandwagon, and "pile-on" the latest PC-victim, we should be fully conscious that the next schlep may be another BrendanEich(Mozilla).

Do we as Christians need to line up behind the rock-throwers, when next week those very same hurlers will turn and have orthodox believers in their sights?

See this is the thing I take issue with - the Sterling situation is being made out by many, and regrettably many on this board it seems, to be an overreaction by the media and the NBA. No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public. This story is a big deal so lets not make it out to be an overreaction. To say we must defend a person's rights over their sins seems like a very R2k type thing to say so I'm struggling to understand this.

Andrew,
You seem to be interpreting a Christian attempt at a balanced and full-spectrum engagement of ALL the issues here--which consequently seems a "dull" response, compared to the general-public hysteria, led by the PC-media, with their laser-like focus on outing the private evils (which they determine for themselves!)--as soft-pedaling of sin. That just doesn't follow.

Don't unethical methods of bringing shame and penalties down on wrong[-]doers[/-]thinkers themselves deserve excoriation? As much as the racism those methods expose? And who made these media-apologists for all sorts of wickedness the kind of people Christians should be taking their lead from? In court, evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible. It's called the "fruit of the poison tree." This is actually a biblical principle: that no one may do evil, that good may come.

What the public--including Christians--is showing is how susceptible to propagandizing we are. If we fail to call it out, even if we agree with what is being cried down, then when we are on the receiving end of this treatment, we can hardly play the "fairness" card in our favor.

 

[SRoper]

I think I'm with Andrew. The idea that because the media ignores certain sins that when it actually gets something right we should bring up everything they do wrong is exactly the tactic that people use against the church when it attacks homosexuality but misses some other sin like divorce.

I also think minimizing the sin by calling it a private thought crime is inaccurate and unhelpful. Words that are calls for action to the harm of another are hardly private or merely thoughts. If it was publicized that a member of your church was saying that we shouldn't encourage blacks to attend your church I would hope you wouldn't dismiss it because it was originally said in private or it only reflected the person's thoughts. No, such a person ought to be investigated for schism.

 

[rbcbob]

See this is the thing I take issue with - the Sterling situation is being made out by many, and regrettably many on this board it seems, to be an overreaction by the media and the NBA. No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public. This story is a big deal so lets not make it out to be an overreaction. To say we must defend a person's rights over their sins seems like a very R2k type thing to say so I'm struggling to understand this.

Andrew I am not insensitive to your moral indignation over Sterling's racial prejudice. What I think we need to be able and willing to do as Christians in 2st century America is to distinguish what, in our neighbor's behavior, is both ungodly and illegal from that which is merely ungodly but legal. It is a fact, however lamentable to some, that we live in a nation which affords Constitutional protection to freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. The contemporary liberal, God-hating elite have become vociferous in their intolerant denunciation of every thought and expressed view that their ever-changing verboten list places on the wrong side of the ledger. The ignorance and bigoted worldview of the Sterlings of this world are, still to this day, permitted in this land. We will soon see the day when Christian thought and expression will be equally shut-down by these same elite thought police.

To aver that Sterling has a right to his perverse worldview is not at all the same as affirming that view. Better that we can still have a civilized discussion over these differences under protection of law than to live in a police state where Big Brother enforces GroupThink on the entire population.

 

[Edward]

No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public. This story is a big deal so lets not make it out to be an overreaction.

Please define racism so I can engage as to a word where the meaning seems to be a bit elastic these days. I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Marcus417]

if the nba is not able to exercise its freedom to disassociate with him per the rules of the agreement he signed with them then how can a church be able to fire a pastor for things said in private? we need to protect the right of sterling to be an idiot but also protect the right of the NBA to legally dissolve their business relationship with sterling.

 

[PhillipJLee]

This forum has been an great source of theological wisdom and encouragement but I have to say, in reading some of the posts in this thread, I am literally stunned by how short-sighted some of these comments have come off. I can't help but hear the voice of so many of my non-Christian friends reading some of your responses and saying, "This is exactly why I am not a Christian." And the unfortunate reality is that some will read that and think it is their fault for basing their belief on something so nominal as behavior instead of looking inward at what is quite honestly, in my humblest opinion, borderline ignorance of Biblical principles and Spirit-filled living.

(1) If a man says, in the privacy of his home, "I want to murder children for fun," regardless of whether or not the comment is made public, Christians ought to be upset because we believe (a) murder is sin and (b) children are a blessing. On any given Sunday, do we only preach against sins that have surfaced or do we preach against private and public sin? If you tolerate the sin because it was in secrecy, I can only wonder what private sins you might be struggling with yourself that you'd like to protect in similar secrecy.

(2) If a public franchise that has historically been a battle ground for fighting racism in the U.S. discovers racism in any of its employees or employers, it has the obligation to bring such racism to light and administer the maximum punishment it can through its own corporate by-laws. If it does not, then the decades spent fighting for equality in the NBA (and perhaps all major league sports teams in general) are forfeit.

(3) If you do not know what it is like to be a minority in the US, you have literally zero grounds for understanding the emotional response Sterling's behavior surfaces. Your one token mission trip does not do justice to a lifetime of living with a history that has been said to be over but clearly isn't -- and each instance wherein racism surfaces, whether you are a Christian or not, you will feel the pain, anger, and powerless frustration of being reminded that no matter what, you are still different and unaccepted. If I was working in the media sphere and I knew this, I would make sure to publicly condemn Sterling's behavior -- not simply because of what he has done but what he stands for and what his principles do to those I deeply care for. In other words, you can't say "I'm not a racist but..." because anything that comes after those few words is going to be racist -- you don't know what it's like so instead of putting in your two cents, maybe ask a few questions about what it's like to be a victim of racism and then you let me know if you're ever going to use the phrase "I'm not racist but..." ever again.