That’s… not really fair. The NFL avoids controversy in general. Doesn’t matter if you are guilty or not; if you are accused, you are hot property, and that may be enough to scare them off. It works that way for many large organizations. Like Michael Jordan said about another subject many years ago, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”
The NFL didn’t back away from Rush because of anything that came to light in the last couple of days. They backed away from him because he’s Rush. His personality and style are well known. While the gangs comment is ugly, everybody already knew he made lots of controversial comments on political topics and sometimes ran off at the mouth. That’s who he is.
Like I said on page one, MLB made the same decision when Mark Cuban wanted to buy the Cubs, and he’s never been accused of racism.
“Hi, Rush, this is your friend Clarence Thomas. Virginia and I congratulate you on your great, great career, and thank you for all you’re doing and for giving us just such great information and entertainment and laughs and everything else. You’ve been a great friend and a great patriot. We wish you many, many more years and we hopefully will see you soon and spend a lot more time together. Congratulations, my friend. Bye.”
Marley, that’s basically what I’m saying, although you’ve expressed it more clearly. I’m criticizing the idea that there was anything about Rush that the NFL didn’t know that was brought up in the last little bit that had any effect on his candidacy. Take away two fake quotes and you’ve still got plenty of reasons not to do business with him.
Plenty of reasons not to do business with Jews, gays, conservatives or whatever group you despise. It’s still discrimination.
That Rush Limbaugh is controversial is certainly true. That however, is not a crime. Last I checked, free speech was a right. Discriminating against people because you disagree with them is wrong, and probably illegal.
Whatever you think of Rush, you MUST realize he doesn’t have a Constitutionally protected right to own a football team, and the NFL owners can do business with whom they choose.
Rush is not a group being discriminated against. He’s being excluded because of who he is as a person, and assholes are not a protected class. If I don’t patronize a restaurant because I think the owner is an asshole, that is technically by-the-dictionary-definition discrimination, but it’s about a million miles away from an anti-Semite not going to a restaurant because he doesn’t like Jews. There’s no conspiracy against conservatives owning NFL teams - Checketts notably was a large contributor to John McCain’s campaign and I’d not be shocked to see that NFL owners lean about 80% Republican - there’s a business decision to avoid adding any more assholes than is necessary to the NFL owners’ ranks.
A black or a jewish person does not have a constitutional right to eat in a dinner. If you own a diner and you throw that person out because they are black or jewish, you have discriminated against that person.
IANAL, but I believe that political speech is similarly protected.
I think Raygun99’s post covers why this does not apply to Rush. The law protects people from racial and political discrimination in a lot of public situations, but nowhere does it require the NFL to accept every owner regardless of the league’s opinions on that person’s fitness to own a team.
It is not. Discrimination laws only apply to explicitly defined protected classes. Right wing, race baiting demagogues are not a protected class. He wasn’t even rejected for being part of a group (do you think most NFL owners are liberals?), but because he, specifically and personally, is a fuckwad screaming asshole who was a business liability to his own investment group and would have been a flesh eating virus on tne Rams as an organization.
Having said that, the NFL owners did not reject him (though they would have had every right to), his own investment group did.
It sounds like you don’t believe in free enterprise, and that you want the government to step in and tell people who they have to be buiness partners with. When did you become a nanny state socialist?
You said upthread that you agree with Rush “110%.” Do you agree with him that it’s Obama’s fault Limbaugh’s investment group dumped him from the Rams bid? If so, could you connect the dots on that for the rest of us?
I’m not seeing how the 14th amendment is germane. Guessing at what you mean, I’d think the equal protection clause pretty much nullifies the ability of a group to discriminate.
Well, if you’re talking about the 14th amendment like Marley and Ray; than you’re wrong. That says it applies to everyone.
Accept that’s not actually true. He wasn’t rejected by the owners but by his own investment group that had originally asked him to join.
The rejection was because of the media controversy. The media controversy was founded on made up quotes that attribute a racism to Limbaugh that he specifically denies holding.
Similarly, his comments concerning Mcnabb were pretty clearly twisted. His comments had nothing to do with Mcnabb and his race, but rather others’ perceptions of Mcnabb and his race. When it first happened it wasn’t a big deal. It had to be constructed as one several days later.
The reason why people think Limbaugh is a racist is because the left constantly accuses him of being one enough to make people believe it. It’s shitty that because they despise Limbaugh’s ideas and standing they attack him rather than his ideas.
I don’t believe in anarchy which seems to be what you mean when you say “free enterprise.” I believe in regulated capitalism, and I think that one of the purest and best forms of regulation is that which prevents discrimination against people.
I just read the Op-ed that I linked to and said I agreed with. I find nothing in there that says what you say. Your statement appears to be a total fabrication. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Please quote the section that says him getting dumped is Obama’s fault.
Yes, I did. I’m in a management position, and when we interview and hire there is a strict criteria over what things we can and cannot consider when making a hiring decision in order to stay in compliance with the law. These include race, gender, sexual preference, religion, political credo, age, disability, family circumstances i.e. divorce, etc.
I think if you run a restaurant and you refuse to serve me because I support Republicans, that you have discriminated against me in a legal sense.
So, yeah. I thought it about it. HAHAHAHA. yourself.
You’re confusing your state’s employment law with the Constitution. The Constitution certainly does not prohibit private discrimination on the basis of political belief. Quite the opposite. It protects such discrimination from prohibition in all but some very limited circumstances.
On another amusing note, I noticed you listed “conservative” alongside “gay” as one of the classes you believe to be protected by the Constitution. Does this mean you also think that sexual orientation is a protected class?