1. Does the Department of Fair Employment and Housing statutes regarding
misgendering of a transgender room renter, when describing the individual as
"She", rather than "They " a few times in 5 years of tenancy constitute housing
discrimination , or does such misgendering conflict with Constitutional First
Amendment Free Speech Rights/ Protections?

Does the California Appellate Case of Taking Offense v State of California carry
Superseding Case Precedence?

2. Can the Department of Fair Employment and Housing enforce their respective
statutes, if such statutes lack sufficient clarity, specificity, and particularity, such
that Petitioner, as landlord, to this day, has no idea what he can and cannot say,
rented a room to the protected individual, and made no effort to force out the
protected individual. Inclusive of this question is the "Void for Vagueness " Legal
Doctrine, rending the statute(s) as unenforceable.

3. Can the DFEH enforce the Unruh Act, if the statutes and sub sections fail to
bring specificity , particularity and detail, such that a landlord / the Petitioner has
no idea what he is required to accommodate, and/ or is not required to
accommodate in the provided housing accommodations? Is the " Void for
Vagueness Doctrine relevant and thereby renders the Unruh Act as unenforceable
accordingly?

4) Can the California Appellate Court, on Appeal, First Appellate District,
Division Two, arbitrarily/ selectively decide to enforce specific sub sections of
law, while not recognizing/ not enforcing certain statutory sub sections of the same
enforcement law/ordinance of the City of Oakland 's Tenant Protection Ordinance?
Is such selective law enforcement a violation of Due Process?

Does misgendering a transgender room renter constitute housing discrimination or violate First Amendment Free Speech Rights, and can the Department of Fair Employment and Housing enforce statutes lacking clarity and specificity under the Void for Vagueness Doctrine?