The Clippers today; Redskins tomorrow! Who's next?

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by righteousdude2, May 25, 2014.

?

Questions on removing owners over PC issues?

  1. There's nothing wrong with the Redskins mascot ...

    6 vote(s)
    85.7%
  2. Washington should change it's name, it is offensive to all races!

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  3. Sterling is a different case ....

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  4. I see this recent development as a way for government meddling ...

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  5. We all need to worry as our freedom of speech is being challenged!

    3 vote(s)
    42.9%
  6. PC and tolerance are a growing problem ....

    3 vote(s)
    42.9%
  7. I support the need to be PC ....

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  8. I support the need to be tolerant .....

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  9. I do not support being PC .....

    5 vote(s)
    71.4%
  10. I do not support being tolerant ....

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Today, we urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports,” the letter from the Senators reads. β€œIt’s time for the NFL to endorse a name change for the Washington, D.C. football team.”

    SEE:http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014...allen-responds-with-letter-to-sen-harry-reid/

    I feared that owners of private business would eventually come under the same ultimatum facing Donald Sterling, I just didn't expect it to happen so quickly?

    America .... we need to be CONCERNED, if they threaten to take the Redskins away from its owner, over some self-imposed PC and racist argument, who and what will be next? Could the Boy Scouts be annexed by the Government, if they don't accept adult hom0se/uals as leaders?

    Where will the PC police stop ... I don't think they will, in fact; we could soon see churches forced to remove preachers, or take away their tax-exempt status, should they offend the public, minorities, or protected individuals?!

    This could happen if a pastor or the church refuses to conduct hom0se/ual weddings, or allow such weddings to take place within their buildings. Individual churches and their denominations could be on the PC radar, and it won't stop there, IMHO!

    Will the owners of the NBA think hard and long about Harry Reid's recent suggestion, and maybe decide not to vote out Sterling, if for any other reason, self-preservation, meaning if it's sterling today, it could be Cuban tomorrow and the Buss family next week? :type:

    I'm interested in your opinion on this recent development.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    There are two issue here - the world and the church. The church can only expect opposition from a world that acts like the world. Where does scripture imply that the church deserves tax exempt status? In fact, the church is told that it will be persecuted if it lives for Christ.

    The rest is just the lost world acting like the lost world.

    Did I miss where 'the government' told Sterling he had to sell his team? I was under the impression it was an NBA decision. Is 'the government' threatening to take over the Redskins?
     
  3. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    The NFL is like a private corporation. They can't be FORCED to do anything other than to make decisions. If they collectively make a business decision that keeps them from losing money, what are we to be concerned about?

    If the owners think it's a blight on the league and it becomes a business decision because people start boycotting the league, then it becomes the free enterprise system doing what it's supposed to do and they change.

    If it's not costing them money, then they aren't gonna force anything.

    There's a huge difference between a current owner giving the league a black eye and the pc police going after team owners over a name change.
     
  4. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Precisely. Forcing Sterling's hand was a business decision.
     
  5. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Sorry, guys ....

    .... but the facts are, the government is behind all these laws to protect people from being harmed by racism, hate attacks. etc.

    How many times has the government jumped in and filed civil rights issues when a person is found innocent in a trial involving a white killing a black!

    Ome of the recent was Travon Martin and George Zimmerman. The AG wasn't happy with the court findings through a jury, and filed a civil rights case!

    whom do you think is behind all this PC and tolerance stuff? The government is behind everything involving a racial issue, or hate crime, even the FBI gets involved in hate crimes!

    Don't mean to rain on your parade, but, the government of this country, is behind a lot of the PC rulings. How many states have been forced to allow hom0se/ual weddings because of the SCOTUS. That very court, tossed out CAlifornia's marriage ban!

    The government may not be upfront pushing, but in the end, when all the chips are down, they come to the rescue.

    If the NBA were to not take action on Sterling ... the feds would find a reason to take action! Of course, so will sponsors of that team and the NBA, jump in and force a change.

    Even the Boy Scouts were pushed by the feds to accepts ga/s...
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    How would you define the word 'government' as in 'the government' does this or that? You specified three situations in your OP, the NBA, the NFL, and the Boy Scouts. In which of these has 'the government' taken legal action to force PC views on businesses or private organisations?

    If we are going to shift the discussion to [email protected] marriage rights do states have the right to decide what marriage in legal in their states? I don't think there has been a federal law passed on [email protected] marriage. Sure they annulled DOMA, but wasn't that an infringement on state's rights?

    Sorry, I just saw your first line. Do you not think the government should protect people from racism or hate crimes?

    BTW, to be clear - I don't think Sterling should have been punished for a supposedly private conversation and I don't think the Redskins should be forced to change their name. In both cases the free market should be allowed to decide. If people don't like the Redskins name they should stay away, especially when the Redskins are on the road.
     
    #6 NaasPreacher (C4K), May 26, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2014
  7. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,468
    Likes Received:
    138
    Agreed....

    This is what I am saying ... but, should the owners, enough of them decide, like you said, to nt revoke his ownership, it will become a federal/civil rights issue.

    California held two votes on ga/ marriage, and because the first one was not worded correctly, the people reworded it. according the how the courts recommended, and got it on the ballot one more time. There were less people backing the bill the second time [and the truth is, if it were up for vote now, it may be voted down[, but it still won.

    So, insteps the legal wrangling, and once the courts sided with the bill, it went to the next level, on appeal, and eventually all the way to our supreme court and than the SCOTUS, who kicked it back down, allowing the Calif. SC ruling to hold.

    What is wrong with this is the Calif. SC was deadlocked, with the deciding vote coming from a justice who was not only hom0se/ual, but married to his same gender partner.

    The sad thing is, this deciding vote should have recused him/herself because of their being ga#.

    What I am saying is no matter what, when a verdict does not come out the way the entitled folks want it to be, [and don't misunderstand, they have the right to appeal] they seek intervention from the feds.

    That is all I am saying. The feds need to back out of a lot of these things, simply because they shouldn't be seen as the "Champion of the people" who have had their day in court and lost.

    I am not a betting man, but, if Sterling lucks out and keeps his team, I see Obama and Holder getting involved under civil rights issues! And this is getting old!

    When Zimmerman was acquitted, the FBI and Holder stepped in under direction of Obama and did more investigating to see if charges could be filed. They couldn't find anything, but, this just shouldn't be how the system works.

    I've had several legal cases [work injuries] and just because they didn't work out as I'd like them to, I did not turn to the federal government and demand their assistance to overthrow the findings [by the way I won my cases, but, the cash awards did not really take care of the loss of income for the rest of my life]. And to take it one step further, harrassment and job site discrimination were issues in the case too! And although I had a great case, the state of California had deeper pockets, and could wait me out, and drive me bankrupt in the process.

    Still, I abided with the findings, and didn't go crying to my federal leaders to champion my cause!

    That is what the legal system is about. trying your case, and appealing if necessary, but not playing the race card or the homophobe card to get what the system has fairly ruled following your day in court!

    I do fear that government is going to eventually be the final say in everything going on, which removes authority of the state(s), and private business!

    Thanks for your opinions! I respect them! :thumbsup:
     
  8. ShagNappy

    ShagNappy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's an election cycle. They do this every election cycle. Pandering for votes. As soon as the fallout from the election settles they will quit talking about it again. Same reason Obama went to Afghanistan. They have dug a hole with the VA thing so they had to send him out to make it look like they care.

    Politics as usual!
     

Share This Page

Loading...