Can you explain your first sentence? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm not defending bigotry/sexism/etc. Hopefully, you didn't take my comment that way.
Stealing would still be wrong if it were legally acceptable, which some forms arguably are.
I didn't think you (as in ia) was especially defending it, I was just trying to point out the logic was very wooly. Though re-reading my comment I was a little hot under the collar, so apologies for that.
You're defending the ad. By extension defending any sexism contained within it (actual sexism TBD).
They went for a breezy tone and forgot to pass it through Legal. I doubt they're sexists. I'm sure sexism would, in this day and age, hurt them more than anyone else.
I don't think it was intentional on the job poster's part, but the fact that he didn't catch how it sounded of proofreading definitely indicates a blind spot to sexism.
You can defend something based on one merit, while not supporting a related detriment.
Which is a strange moral compass, because lots of bad things are not against the law (and with good reason).