The Man-Crunch people were given an opportunity to work with CBS on slight edits to get their ad aired, but weren’t interested. There was never any intent to get the ad on the air — what they wanted was the free press from the “controversy.”

As a giggle, according to the poorly worded R.L.G. commentary, abortion rights groups aren’t furious at the ad, they are furious that Mr. Tebow’s mother had a healthy son. “Doctors, fearing for her health, counselled abortion. Insead, Ms Tebow will say, she prayed, and her superstar son was born healthy. Abortion-rights groups are furious.”

Okay, not what R.L.G. meant to say — unless we go all Freudian slip on him/her.

But there are bigger issues here. CBS is a publicly held company, but they are not a government entity. Therefore, as far as I know, CBS isn’t beholden to any viewpoint except the one it wishes to promote. If CBS decided that a commercial for a gay dating site wasn’t appropriate for a prime time Super Bowl audience, that is its decision. If people don’t like that, then they are perfectly free to boycott CBS or organize people and capital to buy ownership of CBS and do whatever they like with the company.

As far as whether or not this was justifiable discrimination… I don’t think it was discrimination at all. CBS is a business. I’m sure the executives there took a long hard look at the demographics that watch CBS the most and made a business decision based on how their key demographics would react to the Man Crunch ad. In the end, it’s pretty clear they felt like the money they would lose in advertising revenue would far outweigh the money received from Man Crunch for airing the ad.

We (the American public) need to be very careful about throwing words like discrimination around when this was far more likely a simple business decision.