Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: OT: Donald Sterling, good riddance
Page: 3 of 3
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:36 PM
I guess I viewed Johnson's comments as so ridiculous and from an ignorant man that represents no group - and this coming from a Charlotte sports fan that attends many a Bobcat/Hornet games.  In Charlotte it got little play as folks were simply, "Larry's still an idiot."  That said, yes, all racism should be flagged.
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:40 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 

That is simply not factually accurate. There are state level laws protecting lgbt people against employment discrimination that apply to ALL employment in the following states/territories:
 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. 

That represents over 43% of the population of the U.S. When you throw in local laws against employment discrimination in cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Philadelphia, and yes-- Athens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, these laws apply to a majority of the population EASILY. 
  

You certainly seem up to speed on the various state employment laws, even to the degree of knowing the total population given by a particular set of states. 

So answer this: in how many states is it illegal to discriminate based upon the color of an applicant's skin?



 

It took me five minutes to calculate the combined populations of those states. 
 
For the second part, all of them. And you know that. So what does it have to do with anything? 

 

It gets back to the original point. It is absolutely illegal to discriminate based upon race. Period. 

Sexual preference is far less absolute. It depends on many factors, what state, what job, and it is heavily dependent upon even knowing about one's sexual preferences.

Which is all back to the original point made by 123, that an NBA owner's alleged contribution to a "traditional marriage" PAC should have some bearing on that person's ability to retain their job as NBA owner.

But, you knew that. 

 

His point was made in the context of his belief that gay rights are the civil rights battle of this generation. It wasn't always illegal to discriminate based on race. So there really is no difference, except the timing, if you believe that eventually gay rights will be universal. 

Also, I made no value judgment (thought I suspect we have differing opinions on the matter). I simply said you were incorrect in your assertion that laws protecting LGBT folks against employment discrimination are "not commonplace." They certainly are. Now if you had said laws protecting LGBT folks against employment discrimination are not universal then I wouldn't have disputed you. It may seem like nitpicking, but these distinctions are important. 


Fox,  My point in them being the same comes more from a human rights perspective than a legal perspective.  Racial equality was far from law up until 1964, but it was certainly wrong.  So in arguments of human rights, I do not think looking at it from a legal standpoint is a good measure.  

Your argument on being able to prove race but no orientation is valid and a good one.  People could easily claim they were gay when they weren't hired and bring a lawsuit.  Certainly a slippery slope.  What I was trying to say was that why does Sterling get punished for attacking a certain group of people and their rights, while the Orlando owner does the same thing?  I would say what the Orlando owner does is worse because he is directly supporting it and doing so publicly. 

In the context of sports, race is obviously more prevalent because of the numbers and it can't be hidden.  The gay marriage argument will mostly use religion as means to justify it, when in reality they are picking a choosing what they want to believe from the bible.  So it does become a slippery slope between infringing on their rights, but the bible and other  texts also have harsh context for certain races as well.  

 
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:47 PM
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
My point was that NO ONE is outraged by Larry Johnson's comments. WHY NOT? Is it not just as racist to call for exclusion of anyone who is not black? I took exception to the mother of a player telling her boy in foront of me and my better half,  "don't y'all even think of bringing a white girl home". I do not get why racism from sources other than white folks seems to be acceptable ...or maybe there are very few of us who have the balls to call it out. Knife cuts both ways and should not be tolerated at all. 


The justification I hear for this follows this reasoning:  African Americans have been an oppressed group and victims of discrimination.  It is impossible for an oppressed group to be guilty of racism since they are not an empowered majority.

I don't agree with that, but that's what I've heard used as justification.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:55 PM
the123kid wrote:expand_more
Fox,  My point in them being the same comes more from a human rights perspective than a legal perspective.  Racial equality was far from law up until 1964, but it was certainly wrong.  So in arguments of human rights, I do not think looking at it from a legal standpoint is a good measure.  

Your argument on being able to prove race but no orientation is valid and a good one.  People could easily claim they were gay when they weren't hired and bring a lawsuit.  Certainly a slippery slope.  What I was trying to say was that why does Sterling get punished for attacking a certain group of people and their rights, while the Orlando owner does the same thing?  I would say what the Orlando owner does is worse because he is directly supporting it and doing so publicly. 

In the context of sports, race is obviously more prevalent because of the numbers and it can't be hidden.  The gay marriage argument will mostly use religion as means to justify it, when in reality they are picking a choosing what they want to believe from the bible.  So it does become a slippery slope between infringing on their rights, but the bible and other  texts also have harsh context for certain races as well.  

 

Kid, I don't know what the Orlando owner did, so I can't comment on that. As I said early on, I don't pay much attention to the NBA. 

Agreed, much of the opposition to gay marriage will be religion-based. Perhaps some will even "pick and choose" supporting text from the bible, or similar. As with so many things, it's a question of morality and where individuals draw their own lines. Government seldom settles that problem. 

Today, state recognition of gay marriage is in dispute. Some people are for it. Some are against it. I would argue there are legitimate points made on both sides when the discussion is even-tempered. But, and this is my main point, I can't advocate seeking to destroy someone who holds an opposing viewpoint. 

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:58 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
My point was that NO ONE is outraged by Larry Johnson's comments. WHY NOT? Is it not just as racist to call for exclusion of anyone who is not black? I took exception to the mother of a player telling her boy in foront of me and my better half,  "don't y'all even think of bringing a white girl home". I do not get why racism from sources other than white folks seems to be acceptable ...or maybe there are very few of us who have the balls to call it out. Knife cuts both ways and should not be tolerated at all. 


The justification I hear for this follows this reasoning:  African Americans have been an oppressed group and victims of discrimination.  It is impossible for an oppressed group to be guilty of racism since they are not an empowered majority.

I don't agree with that, but that's what I've heard used as justification.

I've heard that same justification, but never by African Americans. It seems to come from "guilt-ridden whites."

 
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 3:28 PM
the123kid wrote:expand_more
My point in them being the same comes more from a human rights perspective than a legal perspective. 



I almost made this comment earlier, but didn't want to send the thread to Siberia. But since it looks like we're heading there anyway, here we go..........I really have a problem with comparing the modern gay rights movement (and specifically the pro-SSM movement) to the racial-equality movement, in that it lacks pretty much all of historical context. The racial-equality movement required 250 years of abolition efforts simply to gain the status of personhood for black Americans, culminating in the bloodiest war in American history, only to be followed by 100 years of de facto and de jur second-class citizenhood for much of the nation. So, yeah, 350 years worth of overwhelming oppression overcome.

The pro-SSM movement is fighting for a right that wasn't recognized anywhere in the world until 13 years ago.

If you're going to argue the merits of SSM, and the wrongness of SSM opponents, please do so on the actual merits, as opposed to cloaking it in a completely different issue with a completely different historical context and trying to convince people that they're the same.
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead
General User
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 1,926
mail
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 3:32 PM
C Money wrote:expand_more
My point in them being the same comes more from a human rights perspective than a legal perspective. 



I almost made this comment earlier, but didn't want to send the thread to Siberia. But since it looks like we're heading there anyway, here we go..........I really have a problem with comparing the modern gay rights movement (and specifically the pro-SSM movement) to the racial-equality movement, in that it lacks pretty much all of historical context. The racial-equality movement required 250 years of abolition efforts simply to gain the status of personhood for black Americans, culminating in the bloodiest war in American history, only to be followed by 100 years of de facto and de jur second-class citizenhood for much of the nation. So, yeah, 350 years worth of overwhelming oppression overcome.

The pro-SSM movement is fighting for a right that wasn't recognized anywhere in the world until 13 years ago.

If you're going to argue the merits of SSM, and the wrongness of SSM opponents, please do so on the actual merits, as opposed to cloaking it in a completely different issue with a completely different historical context and trying to convince people that they're the same.

I didn't realize basic human rights had a statute of limitations. 

 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 4:07 PM
cc cat wrote:expand_more
I guess I viewed Johnson's comments as so ridiculous and from an ignorant man that represents no group - and this coming from a Charlotte sports fan that attends many a Bobcat/Hornet games.  In Charlotte it got little play as folks were simply, "Larry's still an idiot."  That said, yes, all racism should be flagged.

We are talking about the same Larry Johnson that is employed by the Knicks in an executive postion.....right?

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 4:12 PM
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead wrote:expand_more
My point in them being the same comes more from a human rights perspective than a legal perspective. 



I almost made this comment earlier, but didn't want to send the thread to Siberia. But since it looks like we're heading there anyway, here we go..........I really have a problem with comparing the modern gay rights movement (and specifically the pro-SSM movement) to the racial-equality movement, in that it lacks pretty much all of historical context. The racial-equality movement required 250 years of abolition efforts simply to gain the status of personhood for black Americans, culminating in the bloodiest war in American history, only to be followed by 100 years of de facto and de jur second-class citizenhood for much of the nation. So, yeah, 350 years worth of overwhelming oppression overcome.

The pro-SSM movement is fighting for a right that wasn't recognized anywhere in the world until 13 years ago.

If you're going to argue the merits of SSM, and the wrongness of SSM opponents, please do so on the actual merits, as opposed to cloaking it in a completely different issue with a completely different historical context and trying to convince people that they're the same.

I didn't realize basic human rights had a statute of limitations. 

 


You totally avoided his point. 

 
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 4:16 PM
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
I guess I viewed Johnson's comments as so ridiculous and from an ignorant man that represents no group - and this coming from a Charlotte sports fan that attends many a Bobcat/Hornet games.  In Charlotte it got little play as folks were simply, "Larry's still an idiot."  That said, yes, all racism should be flagged.

We are talking about the same Larry Johnson that is employed by the Knicks in an executive postion.....right?


My bad -  Did not know he was employed by Knicks - just Grandmama in these parts.  My ignorance is no excuse. 
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,696
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 6:09 PM
C Money wrote:expand_more
I almost made this comment earlier, but didn't want to send the thread to Siberia. But since it looks like we're heading there anyway, here we go..........I really have a problem with comparing the modern gay rights movement (and specifically the pro-SSM movement) to the racial-equality movement, in that it lacks pretty much all of historical context. The racial-equality movement required 250 years of abolition efforts simply to gain the status of personhood for black Americans, culminating in the bloodiest war in American history, only to be followed by 100 years of de facto and de jur second-class citizenhood for much of the nation. So, yeah, 350 years worth of overwhelming oppression overcome.

The pro-SSM movement is fighting for a right that wasn't recognized anywhere in the world until 13 years ago.

If you're going to argue the merits of SSM, and the wrongness of SSM opponents, please do so on the actual merits, as opposed to cloaking it in a completely different issue with a completely different historical context and trying to convince people that they're the same.

Very well said!  I've made similar points in personal discussions with friends in the past. I've studied a good deal about slavery, the Civil War and  Reconstruction and the comparisons that are often drawn by SSM proponents between their cause and the struggle of African-Americans for freedom and for civil rights are way off target, IMHO.


 
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 7:19 PM
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead wrote:expand_more
I didn't realize basic human rights had a statute of limitations. 

 


Statute of limitations?
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 7:58 PM
This is dealing with a subject connected with Donald Sterling and basketball, so it hasn't gone to Siberia YET...but hopefully we will get the subject back to a more direct connection with basketball.  Some thoughtful stuff and so far no one has gone way off the edge with the insults, etc. 

The Same Sex Marriage issue is certainly worthy of discussion in many forums, but topics like that almost inevitably lead to trouble here at BA. 
El Gato Roberto
General User
EGR
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,220
person
mail
El Gato Roberto
mail
Posted: 5/3/2014 9:39 AM
Consider this...http://youtu.be/RovF1zsDoeM
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 5/5/2014 9:28 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I almost made this comment earlier, but didn't want to send the thread to Siberia. But since it looks like we're heading there anyway, here we go..........I really have a problem with comparing the modern gay rights movement (and specifically the pro-SSM movement) to the racial-equality movement, in that it lacks pretty much all of historical context. The racial-equality movement required 250 years of abolition efforts simply to gain the status of personhood for black Americans, culminating in the bloodiest war in American history, only to be followed by 100 years of de facto and de jur second-class citizenhood for much of the nation. So, yeah, 350 years worth of overwhelming oppression overcome.

The pro-SSM movement is fighting for a right that wasn't recognized anywhere in the world until 13 years ago.

If you're going to argue the merits of SSM, and the wrongness of SSM opponents, please do so on the actual merits, as opposed to cloaking it in a completely different issue with a completely different historical context and trying to convince people that they're the same.

Very well said!  I've made similar points in personal discussions with friends in the past. I've studied a good deal about slavery, the Civil War and  Reconstruction and the comparisons that are often drawn by SSM proponents between their cause and the struggle of African-Americans for freedom and for civil rights are way off target, IMHO.


 


Certainly the two situations are not exactly the same. But I think it is reasonable to think that we can draw parallels between the two situations. Both are struggles for human rights. You just have to be nuanced enough to see where the parallels end. 

 
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 5/5/2014 1:55 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Certainly the two situations are not exactly the same. But I think it is reasonable to think that we can draw parallels between the two situations. Both are struggles for human rights. You just have to be nuanced enough to see where the parallels end. 



Unless you limit the definition of "human rights," you could make the exact statement about virtually every single political issue that comes up for debate. And therein lies the problem..."human rights" means exactly whatever the particular activist for a particular issue wants it to mean: SSM is about "human rights," concealed carry is about "human rights," infant male circumcision is about "human rights"...none of which have much to do with the historical context of the fight for racial equality. Tying the issues together is nothing more than an attempt to de-humanize opposition....."Oh, I don't want to be like those racists that beat slaves and lynched people and did other unspeakably horrible things! I better support SSM!"

Again, if an argument is to be made in favor of SSM, it ought to be on the merits of SSM (and there is a meritorious argument in favor of SSM to be made) and not by arguing that opponents of SSM are anti-human.
Showing Messages: 51 - 66 of 66
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)