[eurleif]

>The only thing objectively "wrong" about his opinion is that it is unpopular.

Don't confuse disagreement with subjectivity. Racism is objectively harmful, and typically based on factual beliefs that are objectively false. Some people disagree with that, and it's their right to hold that opinion, but they're wrong.

The NBA's decision was probably driven largely by a fear of private boycotts. Do you think such boycotts are wrong, too? I.e., do you think Don Sterling's right to say racist things is more important than my right to choose not to do business with racists? Or do you think the boycott would've been ok, but the NBA should've ignored it?

[cookiecaper]

I think boycotts should be used sparingly and that people should first consider whether the deeds were sufficiently problematic to justify the potential cultural ramifications that arise when we choose to punish someone for having different beliefs or opinions than us, no matter how much we may or may not dislike them. It'd be preferable if we based our boycotts on more significant matters.

However, I think the much larger problem than boycotts from random groups (which are unlikely to be effective long-term) are the steps taken to purge Sterling entirely and divest him of his property.