Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 At this point I don't think they are. You don't think they are covering the story? What is it you think they're doing? Are you suggesting they invented the story? But you seem to be suggesting that they do whatever it takes and push this story until they can drum up the resolution you are hoping for. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. What I am not suggesting is that the media ignore this story -- they couldn't even if they wanted to. You still haven't answered how you, Joe Miner, would handle the investigation if you were in control of the media. I'm curious, what would your course of action be? To ignore the story entirely? I do like how you feel your opinion that this is a huge story is correct regardless of everyone else that has a different opinion. It's not my opinion that the story is huge. See, there are things called facts that are not subject to opinion, and the fact that this story is on the front page of nearly every news outlet in the US today is proof that it is a big story even if you don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 You don't think they are covering the story? What is it you think they're doing? Are you suggesting they invented the story? That's not what I'm suggesting at all. What I am not suggesting is that the media ignore this story -- they couldn't even if they wanted to. You still haven't answered how you, Joe Miner, would handle the investigation if you were in control of the media. I'm curious, what would your course of action be? To ignore the story entirely? It's not my opinion that the story is huge. See, there are things called facts that are not subject to opinion, and the fact that this story is on the front page of nearly every news outlet in the US today is proof that it is a big story even if you don't think so. Damn you need to learn to read. You asked a question. I gave an answer. You don't seem to understand how a conversation flows. Newspapers putting a story on the front page doesn't equal that story being "big" in the average person's mind. But interpreting facts much like reading probably isn't your strong suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 There has been tangible harm -- lots of it. Most of it occurred in his other businesses (being a landlord) where he refused to rent to people of Asian, black, or hispanic decent in his Beverly Hills buildings. Sterling said (in court documents mind you) he did not like to rent to Hispanics because "Hispanics smoke, drink and just hang around the building." And that, "Black tenants smell and attract vermin." He settled out of court. He should never have had to settle out of court, as he is entitled to his opinions, and should be able to use his own propertya s he sees fit, as well as being able to associate as he sees fit as well. He does not require polite society's approval for these things. Further, he did no one any tangible harm by refusing to associate with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 You don't think they are covering the story? What is it you think they're doing? Are you suggesting they invented the story? That's not what I'm suggesting at all. What I am not suggesting is that the media ignore this story -- they couldn't even if they wanted to. You still haven't answered how you, Joe Miner, would handle the investigation if you were in control of the media. I'm curious, what would your course of action be? To ignore the story entirely? It's not my opinion that the story is huge. See, there are things called facts that are not subject to opinion, and the fact that this story is on the front page of nearly every news outlet in the US today is proof that it is a big story even if you don't think so. Lohan makes the front page too. Schadenfreude sells. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the guy given the context, but I'm a bit concerned about private conversations being recorded and shared by every major news outlet. The line between TMZ and ESPN and CNN gets increasingly blurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Damn you need to learn to read. You asked a question. I gave an answer. You don't seem to understand how a conversation flows. Newspapers putting a story on the front page doesn't equal that story being "big" in the average person's mind. But interpreting facts much like reading probably isn't your strong suit. You did not answer my question. And you changed your own thinking mid question -- so clearly thinking is not your strong suit. I never said the story was big "in the average person's mind" -- you just added that to feel like you're winning this "conversation". The fact you think you need to "win" shows you don't know how to converse either ... or how to construct an argument. What I said was the story is huge, as evidenced by the amount of press it's getting. My OPINION is it's an important story -- different from the scope of the story itself -- which you're welcome to disagree with. But you're still dodging the question. How would you, the great thinker Joe Miner, handle the story if you were running ABC today? He should never have had to settle out of court, as he is entitled to his opinions, and should be able to use his own propertya s he sees fit, as well as being able to associate as he sees fit as well. He does not require polite society's approval for these things. Further, he did no one any tangible harm by refusing to associate with them. The courts and state of California disagree with you that there was no tangible harm done. According to them, there were millions of dollars worth of tangible harm done to his tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) He should never have had to settle out of court, as he is entitled to his opinions, and should be able to use his own propertya s he sees fit, as well as being able to associate as he sees fit as well. He does not require polite society's approval for these things. Further, he did no one any tangible harm by refusing to associate with them. A landlord cannot refuse to rent to a tenant, or engage in any other type of discrimination, on the basis of group characteristics specified by law that are not closely related to the landlord’s business needs.35 Race and religion are examples of group characteristics specified by law. Arbitrary discrimination on the basis of any personal characteristic such as those listed under this heading also is prohibited.36 Indeed, the California Legislature has declared that the opportunity to seek, obtain and hold housing without unlawful discrimination is a civil right.37 Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income , or disability.39 California law also prohibits discrimination based on any of the following: A person's medical condition or mental or physical disability; or Personal characteristics, such as a person's physical appearance or sexual orientation that are not related to the responsibilities of a tenant;<a href="http://www.dca.ca.go...ml#footnote40">40 or A perception of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability or medical condition, or a perception that a person is associated with another person who may have any of these characteristics http://www.dca.ca.go...imination.shtml I do however agree freedom of association is an important notion- he is free to associate with whom he pleases, however distateful we deem his choices to be. Edited April 28, 2014 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Lohan makes the front page too. Schadenfreude sells. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the guy given the context, but I'm a bit concerned about private conversations being recorded and shared by every major news outlet. The line between TMZ and ESPN and CNN gets increasingly blurry. The way the tape came to be is certainly shady. I do not dispute that or defend the woman on the tape at all. But if this tape is the silver bullet that gets Donald Sterling out of the NBA for good, it's nothing but a positive thing for any NBA fan. A landlord cannot refuse to rent to a tenant, or engage in any other type of discrimination, on the basis of group characteristics specified by law that are not closely related to the landlord’s business needs.35 Race and religion are examples of group characteristics specified by law. Arbitrary discrimination on the basis of any personal characteristic such as those listed under this heading also is prohibited.36 Indeed, the California Legislature has declared that the opportunity to seek, obtain and hold housing without unlawful discrimination is a civil right.37 Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income , or disability.39 California law also prohibits discrimination based on any of the following: A person's medical condition or mental or physical disability; or Personal characteristics, such as a person's physical appearance or sexual orientation that are not related to the responsibilities of a tenant;<a href="http://www.dca.ca.go...ml#footnote40">40 or A perception of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability or medical condition, or a perception that a person is associated with another person who may have any of these characteristics http://www.dca.ca.go...imination.shtml Cheers for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 You're right, I would like to see him sell the Clippers. The only just way for this to be accomplished is for him to be deprived of profits by individuals choosing not to purchase his product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 You did not answer my question. And you changed your own thinking mid question -- so clearly thinking is not your strong suit. I never said the story was big "in the average person's mind" -- you just added that to feel like you're winning this "conversation". The fact you think you need to "win" shows you don't know how to converse either ... or how to construct an argument. What I said was the story is huge, as evidenced by the amount of press it's getting. My OPINION is it's an important story -- different from the scope of the story itself -- which you're welcome to disagree with. But you're still dodging the question. How would you, the great thinker Joe Miner, handle the story if you were running ABC today? The courts and state of California disagree with you that there was no tangible harm done. According to them, there were millions of dollars worth of tangible harm done to his tenants. Find a 7 year old, and have them sit you down to read the posts on this thread. Maybe you can follow the flow of the conversation at that point. I doubt it, but when the 7 year old calls you an idiot maybe you'll listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The only just way for this to be accomplished is for him to be deprived of profits by individuals choosing not to purchase his product. Bingo- if the stadium is empty and merchandise collects dust, if the concessions are not being sold- all of the sudden change happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The only just way for this to be accomplished is for him to be deprived of profits by individuals choosing not to purchase his product. I don't disagree with that at all. At no time or in no place am I advocating that the NBA or anyone else seize Sterling's private property which is the team. But people cannot be motivated to make an informed decision with their wallets unless they have all the information. They've had rumors and speculation that Sterling was a dickhead but now they have audio. That makes a big difference. Find a 7 year old, and have them sit you down to read the posts on this thread. Maybe you can follow the flow of the conversation at that point. I doubt it, but when the 7 year old calls you an idiot maybe you'll listen. Chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The way the tape came to be is certainly shady. I do not dispute that or defend the woman on the tape at all. But if this tape is the silver bullet that gets Donald Sterling out of the NBA for good, it's nothing but a positive thing for any NBA fan. Cheers for this. I just know in Colorado you have to be very careful on why you exclude a tenant from your rentals. That is why we have a very clear, very explicit selection process that we adhere to like white on rice... we have alot of Latino applpicants, so we are careful to know the laws because it can get ugly real quick. I'm actually glad Sterling storty came to light. I now know what Hispanics and Black do in our units... lol... crazy old bastard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The only just way for this to be accomplished is for him to be deprived of profits by individuals choosing not to purchase his product. Agreed, but even in that scenario he's still going down by way of a recording which was made under dubious (probably illegal, but I refuse to look it up) circumstances. One day when I'm old and bored I plan to run for office just to be reminded of all the awful (hilarious) things I've said and done and long since forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Agreed, but even in that scenario he's still going down by way of a recording which was made under dubious (probably illegal, but I refuse to look it up) circumstances. One day when I'm old and bored I plan to run for office just to be reminded of all the awful (hilarious) things I've said and done and long since forgotten. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I'm actually glad Sterling storty came to light. I now know what Hispanics and Black do in our units... lol... crazy old bastard! Hilarious. But seriously, I don't want you associating with those people. You can sleep with them, you can even be a minority, but I don't want to see any pics of you hanging out with other minorities on your instagram or facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Hilarious. But seriously, I don't want you associating with those people. You can sleep with them, you can even be a minority, but I don't want to see any pics of you hanging out with other minorities on your instagram or facebook. I photo shop all minorities out before I post anything. You can never be too careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I photo shop all minorities out before I post anything. You can never be too careful. I go even further. I have all my famous friends dress up in whiteface first, then, and only then, do I allow them to be seen in public with me anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 A landlord cannot refuse to rent to a tenant, or engage in any other type of discrimination, on the basis of group characteristics specified by law that are not closely related to the landlord’s business needs.35 Race and religion are examples of group characteristics specified by law. Arbitrary discrimination on the basis of any personal characteristic such as those listed under this heading also is prohibited.36 Indeed, the California Legislature has declared that the opportunity to seek, obtain and hold housing without unlawful discrimination is a civil right.37 Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income , or disability.39 California law also prohibits discrimination based on any of the following: A person's medical condition or mental or physical disability; or Personal characteristics, such as a person's physical appearance or sexual orientation that are not related to the responsibilities of a tenant;<a href="http://www.dca.ca.go...ml#footnote40">40 or A perception of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability or medical condition, or a perception that a person is associated with another person who may have any of these characteristics http://www.dca.ca.go...imination.shtml I do however agree freedom of association is an important notion- he is free to associate with whom he pleases, however distateful we deem his choices to be. The law you are citing is noting more than Legislative Thought Policing, which is far more offensive than anything Mr. Sterling has said or done, and is the antithesis of a free society. Discrimination may well be ugly, but forbiding discrimination by individuals denies them their basic rights. An individual has the right to think or say as he sees fit. An individual also has the right to freely associate, and use his own property as he sees fit. No individual has the right to use another person's property against their will, nor do they have the right to force them to associate against their will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The law you are citing is noting more than Legislative Thought Policing, which is far more offensive than anything Mr. Sterling has said or done, and is the antithesis of a free society. Discrimination may well be ugly, but forbiding discrimination by individuals denies them their basic rights. An individual has the right to think or say as he sees fit. An individual also has the right to freely associate, and use his own property as he sees fit. No individual has the right to use another person's property against their will, nor do they have the right to force them to associate against their will. This is something we will never agree upon. I understand and respect where you're coming from, but it's too idealistic for me. And I'm pretty idealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 This is something we will never agree upon. I understand and respect where you're coming from, but it's too idealistic for me. And I'm pretty idealistic. When you open up the door to any thought policing, you open up the door to all thought policing. It's one of those things that is either OK, or it's not. Quite frankly, it's one of the things that terrifies me most. Freedom can be ugly; but without the freedom to be "bad", there is no freedom to be "good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts