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?

. 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? Petitioner raised this issue with the Appellate Court, as a Constitutional matter in his Appeal, which was ignored. Appellant Petitioned for Re-Hearing, which was denied. The Appellate Court ignored/ bypassed the same issue in both. The Petitioner then Petitioned for Review to the California Supreme Court, which was denied. 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. The Appellate Court elected to ignore this set of issues in their decision as well as in Petitioner ’s Petition for Re-Hearing, which was denied, as a Constitutional matter. Petitioner Petitioned for Review to the California Supreme Court, , which was denied. 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?