Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Our legal system will not hold Facebook liable for a case like that. I have to disagree with you on that. I'd put money on targeting a housing advertisement toward someone with a preference for organic food to be ruled discriminatory within five years. It's an unavoidable logical consequence of the logic driving today's complaint.
The problem with your argument is FB doesn’t matter to your point. The law already exists if that will happen as you say, it will happen no matter what FB does. So why should FB get to ignore the law unlike thousands of other businesses? Why do they get an exception?
My original point (which has now been downvoted into oblivion, presumably because it raises uncomfortable questions) is that we as an industry need to ask the question "What next?". We know that these regulations will not in fact stop housing discrimination and that more will follow.
It's disappointing that we're unable to have a frank discussion of this subject, since it's important both legally and economically. All the responses in this thread have essentially been that we shouldn't ask "What next?" because the "next" part hasn't happened yet. That's just ostrich-in-sand thinking.