I have a problem with the league taking away the franchise or fining him for making unpopular comments in private that were then leaked.
The privacy of these comments is irrelevant; "I didn't want the public to know what I think!" is not any sort of excuse.
Allowing a franchise to take way an owners business because of private statements that the franchise disagrees with is problematic.
Due to the nature of the NBA, if Sterling runs the Clippers into the ground, it affects the rest of the teams. There is already a precedent: Ted Stepien was essentially forced to sell the Cavaliers because he was repeatedly trading away his first-round picks so he wouldn't have to pay them the higher salaries (the league actually instituted the
Ted Stepien rule prohibiting teams from trading first-round picks in successive seasons).
Sterling's actions have already caused significant blowback from both players and coaches, and would almost certainly result in a significant competitive disadvantage to that team if unaddressed. If the league office can force out Ted Stepien, why not Donald Sterling?
For those who feel the league ought have the right to take away the franchise...would you feel the same if the following was the case:
Person buys a Chick-fil-A franchise. Spends plenty of money developing it into thriving business. Outwardly he pretends to be a Christian, goes to church, donates money to Operation rescue etc, has a nativity in his restaurant on xmas. In a private conversation with his wife he mentions he is in fact an atheist and just pretends to believe in christ because it is good for business. Unbeknownst to him his wife tape records the conversation. Years later while going thru a messy divorce his wife releases the tape the following week Chick-fil demands that he cease operating the restaurant.
That's his own fault for opening a franchise of an openly theocratic restaurant. I have no problem with him losing his franchisee rights, particularly since (in your example) he was falsely pretending to be religious solely for the purpose of pandering.
Ultimately, though, your hypothetical scenario is a smokescreen. Allow me to demonstrate: suppose the Chick-Fil-A franchisee had, as a private citizen, taken out an advertisement in the LA Times saying that giving women the vote was a mistake and that allowing their inferior intellect into the workforce caused our economic problems. Or maybe an advertisement saying that The Jew is undermining our society and that the nations of the world should pass laws providing for their extermination.
Do you still support his right to speak his mind without losing his franchise license?
No?
Then your issue is really that you don't think what Sterling said is
bad enough to warrant his expulsion.
Author