I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this behavior to stop. She is calling this behavior out as illegal. I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law.
No it isn't. Discriminating against certain classes of people is illegal. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against individuals based on their behavior.
> This company's operation is probably illegal (see parent post where i listed examples of how they discriminate)
Are you a lawyer? Discrimination law in the US is very complex. If you're not a lwayer, and you're really interested in this, it might be worth your time to ask a lawyer who specializes in these things their opinion on this.
One of the things that makes these things so complicated is that there isn't just one controlling authority called "the law". There are local, state, and federal laws, there are regulatory interpretations of the laws, and there are court decisions about the laws. There are also decisions by regulatory agencies about what the're going to enforce.
I don't think the latter* is illegal because it's not discrimination against a member of a protected class. That doesn't make it okay or that it couldn't lead to other trouble.
Not sure how to interpret your comment, but it is indeed very clearly illegal in Europe where anti-discrimination laws (at EU and national levels) explicitly state that it is illegal to treat people in a worse way on the ground of gender or race, which is exactly what she is calling for.
If she really wanted to promote diversity she could simply have called for people to encourage diverse teams.
You clipped that in the middle and left a statement that doesn't make any sense. "...as illegal" can't be true, false, or even meaningful without the comparison that comes after. And with that comparison -- the comparison to forms of discrimination (such as racial) that are permitted only when the standard of strict scrutiny are meet, it's a simple statement of the fact of well-established constitutional case law. And is one of the motivations for the ERA, whose advocates argue that it is necessary to subject sex discrimination to the same degree of scrutiny.
Next time read a whole sentence before accusing someone of lying.
> It has to be made illegal in the sense that its illegality should be recognized by a court, because it is plain discrimination.
In the US, at least, “plain discrimination” by private parties is generally legal, but for regulated utilities (which Facebook is not) and fairly narrow sets of specifically prohibited bases of discrimination by public accommodations.
If you want a general rule applying something like the rational basis test used as the minimum standard applicable to public discrimination to private commercial discrimination, that's
a fairly radical change to the law.
reply