It's not about voting so we don't need to consider that. It's about far more than voting if there's a lot of financial or other support going on.
Political affiliation is not a protected class in workplace discrimination suits, at least in most states. It's also not federally protected. But if your political beliefs overlap with protected status issues it can become a problem.
This is why I very specifically talked about "character" issues factoring in to workplace decisions, in both directions. Because that's what this really boils down to.
We can wish for people to "man up" all we want but the world is beyond our control. It is what it is. And that includes conflict.
And like it or not a contract is between two parties providing value of some kind. You seem to think there's an employer/employee dynamic that's one-sided and I don't agree with that. Contracts are simply legal agreements between parties, in this case business partners. The player provides certain services and the franchise provides compensation for those services, along with other perks.
The fact that money is going one way doesn't make the dynamic inherently and necessarily one-sided. It may be PERCEIVED to be that way by people who are loathe to negotiate or who have grown up thinking boss/employee relationships are all the same. But when you have professional contractors who are hired with negotiated terms there is much more equal footing than some kid slinging fries at the local fast food place...especially if there are others who are willing to pay for the contractor's services.
You posted a rumor that was political in nature with no link or source attached so I asked for the source. Not a big deal.
Like I said in my last post, if there is something beyond a political affiliation or who somebody voted for, then sure. Just look at our buddy Dan, his actions should be dealt with and that would void any agreement of employment. So far I haven't seen any of that in this case, and it seems NBA players are quickly moving from true legal justification to a justification by convenience on their part. That I don't agree with.
And while I agree a contract is a two way legal agreement, I don't agree they are equal parties and they are partners. It is an employee/employer agreement, no different than a guy working at mcdonalds. Just much a more complicated agreement and a ton more money. I can't agree to work for a hourly wage and then tell my employer how to do things. If the Houston owner is living up to his end of the contract I don't see any cause.
Conflict is one thing, and it's expected in life, as you said. How people deal with it is "manning up." We are not agreeing on this subject, I can't get upset about it just because you don't agree with me. Me leaving or wanting you to leave the board isn't the answer. How about respecting opinions, having respectful dialog, and moving on? Obviously apples and oranges to a contract dispute, but I think that attitude would be beneficial across the board.