on the basis of sexual orientation, gender and family status was the main problem in this case. The website, which also catered to landlords, simply would not allow a tenant to even peruse the listings unless she provided the very characteristics that are protected by the civil rights laws.  The website' computer then used that information to determine which listings the tenant would get to see.  (the website's arguments for immunity would have meant that it could have demanded race information as well).  I was the original attorney for the plaintiffs before becoming a prosecutor, and agree with the other commments posted here that this case protecting housing rights is limited to websites that put themselves between people and homes.