But how is he any less protected than Phil Robertson was?
Granted, History did suspend Robertson...and the family did say that was fine, they would take their duck calls and go home rather than buckle under. But the thing was, his remarks were public, and people were polarized over his right to make them. With Sterling, the NBA took action on remarks that were PRIVATE...how is he less protected and why aren't people fighting over his right to say what he did ESPECIALLY since he expected them to be private?
Granted, History did suspend Robertson...and the family did say that was fine, they would take their duck calls and go home rather than buckle under. But the thing was, his remarks were public, and people were polarized over his right to make them. With Sterling, the NBA took action on remarks that were PRIVATE...how is he less protected and why aren't people fighting over his right to say what he did ESPECIALLY since he expected them to be private?
Comment