[AdrianB1]

Going one step forward, you can say that any company that advertises on any channel and not on all other possible channels (TV, outdoor, print) is discriminating. If you can prove a gender is watching more TV than the other, then it is gender discrimination.

This entire discrimination thing is crazy. Yes, a company can discriminate intentionally and not accepting or failing certain candidates based on demographics OR it simply chooses where to spend the marketing money for the best impact. Like not advertising a bra to men, not because men don't wear a bra (some may do), but because the impact per dollar of advertising it to men is reduced. Discrimination!!!

[yardie]

First, your argument is completely silly to the point of not being taken seriously.

Now, no one gives a shit about how advertising tampons to women discriminates against men. And no one gives a shit that Axe body spray is targeted to males of a certain demographic. What the government is concerned about is how advertising jobs, housing, and finance can be discriminatory.

If you post an ad for a job that targets exclusively men, you are in violation of the Civil Rights Act (Title IX), and the American Disabilities Act.

If you post an ad for an apartment that targets white males you are in violation of the Housing and Community Development Act and the Civil Rights Act.

If you post an ad for mortgages or other financial vehicles that targets a certain demographic and even certain neighborhoods you are in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

There is no law against marketing bras to women, beers to men, or Cialis to the elderly. Housing, employment, and access to credit are some of the foundational services that the government has deemed any discrimination is bad. There is no one step forward because there is a clear line drawn in the sand that anyone with a basic understanding of these laws will know.