Reply to post: Re: Targeting peopel who are already truck drivers

'Men only' job ad posts land Facebook in boiling hot water with ACLU

eldakka Silver badge

Re: Targeting peopel who are already truck drivers

@Doug

an owner on a tight budget probably considers it a waste of money to advertise both positions to both sexes.

The law in this matter doesn't care whether the owner thinks it is (or it in fact is) a waste of money of not.

It's a waste of money to properly dispose of the rubbish generated, therefore it's ok to just toss all the rubbish onto the street?

Is it so terrible to discriminate (without any intention to restrict the positions by sex) in ONE avenue of advertising, when others are equal?

There is an intention to discriminate by sex, it's right there in the options that the advertiser explicitly chose to select in the advert. Or are you saying the advertiser didn't explicitly select the option to target a specific sex? That Facebook did it automatically for them?

Any avenue of advertising that allows you to explicitly, with specificity target - for or against - a protected class is discriminatory. Sure, you could put ads up only in YMCA notice boards, which implicitly targets young men. But there is a difference between explicit and implicit. Explicit is definitely illegal, implicit you might be able to get away with.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019