Scolding and scorning racist or anti-gay speech is completely consistent with the First Amendment. It creates a quasi-taboo that is not enforced legally, but through shame and lost business. It doesn’t eradicate racism or homophobia but it marginalizes them and forces them underground. They aren’t considered decent, cultured, or respectable points of view. But, some people are deeply uncomfortable that a CEO was forced out his job for opposing gay equality or that an NBA owner can be banned for life and forced to sell his team because he was caught on tape making private racist remarks.

Both cases involve people in leadership positions whose views reflect on the reputations of the organizations they led or were a part of. In the case of Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, he agreed to certain stipulations when he became an owner. Basically, he gave up some of his right to say whatever he wants, even in the privacy of his own home. Employees can be fired making racist statements, so it’s only fitting that employers can be fired for the same offense.

Perhaps the only available defense for Sterling is that he had no way of knowing that his remarks would ever become public and so he isn’t responsible for the damage his remarks did to the reputation of the National Basketball Association. In this very limited sense, he can argue that he isn’t at fault and did not violate any of the league’s bylaws or policies. But, for league leadership, the players, the other owners, the coaches, and the fans, it hardly matters how the remarks came to light because they created an immediate crisis.

For a wide array of reasons, Sterling could not continue on as an owner. For one, the Clippers would never be able to attract another free agent. College talent would pledge never to play for the Clippers. Fans would boycott the team, both at home and on the road. Sponsors would abandon the team, and perhaps even the league. The players on the roster would be in an objectively hostile workplace with no expectation of fair treatment.

It was obvious that Sterling was simply incapable of atoning for his racism or redeeming himself in a time period compatible with the need for the team to conduct ongoing operations.

He had to go. And I think it just isn’t all that applicable to other situations. I mean, it might not seem quite right that a man was surreptitiously recorded in his own house, and that he was stripped of his team as a result despite not having committed any crime in a legal sense. But weighing that “not quite right” against the much larger “completely wrong” things he said, it’s a bit lop-sided, don’t you think?

I know some people are miffed that Sterling was considered an okay owner when he was committing massive housing discrimination and only got in trouble over the comparatively minor offense of being a racist in his own living room. That’s a fair point. We can talk about that. But that doesn’t mean late isn’t better than never.