People Might Call Me Names for Agreeing With Donald Sterling
I like this move by Donald Sterling.
I know saying that might make some people angry. Some might even call me names or believe that I am racists or that I support racism. But nothing is further from the truth. Here’s why I agree with Sterling.
It seems redundant at this point to say it again, but let me be clear: I do not condone racism of any kind. That includes black on white racism that is often ignored by media and activists. Racism of any kind is an evil disease in our country that needs to die.
So here is where we’re at concerning Donald Sterling.
The aged owner of the NBA’s Clippers was caught on tape making some racist remarks. Now, let’s be totally honest and admit that he was secretly recorded, which is a violation of his privacy. Those secretly recorded comments were then released to the public without his approval, which is also a violation of his privacy and civil rights. No one wants to talk about those offenses because they just don’t conjure up the mob mentality liberals like to foment.
After the comments were released and the public was outraged, the NBA decided to impose a massive fine ($2.5 million) and then ban Sterling from the NBA for life. The league is also trying to force Sterling to sell the team he has owned since 1980.
Donald Sterling has refused to pay the fine and is preparing to fight to keep his team. And I couldn’t agree more with him.
I agree with Sterling because he is being punished for comments he made in private, after being taped without his knowledge. The NBA is trying to fine, ban, and take away Sterling’s team because of his words. There is not one shred of evidence that Sterling ever behaved in a racist way concerning the Los Angeles Clippers. I mean, nearly the entire team is black. Everyone knows you can’t behave as a racist and do anything in the NBA.
But the fact that Sterling has never behaved in a racist way toward his team doesn’t seem to matter to the NBA or the mob of activists calling for his head. The very fact that he spoke racist words makes him, in their eyes, unworthy of participation in the NBA.
But that is a dangerous, very dangerous path to tread. When we as a society start punishing people for the words they speak we are moving toward a dangerous precedent. Especially when we punish people for words they speak in private.
Let’s consider for a moment the incidents that have already occurred that should be troubling for all Americans.
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich eventually resigned (more like forced out) after it was revealed that he made a donation to the Prop 8 campaign supporting traditional marriage. Eich never once discriminated against homosexuals and not one shred of evidence to the contrary was ever presented. In fact, homosexuals at Mozilla said Eich treated them wonderfully. But because he made a donation, a form of speech, as a private citizen, he was forced out.
Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones was fined and suspended for sharing his opposition to the post-draft kiss of Michael Sam with his boyfriend. The now (in)famous kiss broadcast on national television evoked a wide range of responses and Jones shared his opposition on Twitter. The Dolphins then fined and suspended him pending “educational training.”
And just a year ago ESPN analyst Chris Broussard came under fire for answering a question about homosexuality. When asked what he thought about NBA player Jason Collins coming out as gay and confessing to be a Christian Broussard responded with his personal view:
“Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you are living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”
Broussard was vilified by homosexual activists and reprimanded by ESPN. But look at the dangerous pattern here. These are people sharing their personal views and being punished, fined, fired, and more. In each of these cases there is not one shred of evidence of behavior against people, these are simply their thoughts, opinions.
Regarding the Michael Sam/ Don Jones incident the very opinionated and larger-than-life sports personality Stephen A – as he is affectionately known made his feelings clear in a segment for ESPN:
“I think it’s a very, very dangerous thing when people see something and they have a problem with what they’re seeing and they express themselves, and ultimately they’re fined…not everybody is going to like you and like what they see. People should have the freedom to not want to be associated with that or not want that in their face. I don’t have a problem with it, but I do respect those that do.”
Bingo Stephen A, you hit the nail on the head. In a free society people are allowed to say what they believe without fear of reprisal. Furthermore, in a truly tolerant society people respect the right of others to disagree and choose to disassociate themselves with people they disagree with. But we don’t live in a tolerant society and the ones calling for tolerance are often the most intolerant of all.
So where does this line of thinking and the precedent of punishing people for their speech or private thoughts lead?
The logical end is the intentional punishment of anyone that vocalizes disagreement with the views of what culture defines as acceptable.
For example, it is reasonable to think that at some point Christians will be forced to either affirm and celebrate homosexuality or face punishment, including the loss of their jobs. Why not? If Donald Sterling can be banned from the NBA for making racist comments, why can’t others be banned for supporting traditional marriage – which will be viewed as discrimination against homosexuals?
My point here is not to make Sterling out to be an innocent victim. He’s not. He made racist comments and there are always repercussions for that. But to ban Sterling from the NBA and then demand he sell a team he owns – his property – for his comments is not just absurd, I believe it is unconstitutional. If the NBA can force Sterling to sell then you can bet others will use that precedent to demand other dissidents, those disagreeing with the cultural norms, be relieved of their personal property.
By the way, why isn’t the NBA demanding that Michael Jordan be banned from the NBA for life. Don’t they know that Jordan has admitted to at one time being a racist and being “against white people”? Aren’t those words enough to warrant the same action against Jordan that the NBA sees fit for Sterling?
There’s that reverse racism, black on white racism, that no one likes to admit exists.