This fucking guy. If you’re not familiar with Feuerstein, he’s the preacher who’s acquired popularity by “destroying evolution in three minutes” in a selfie taken in his SUV (no labs, no degrees, just a lone dipshit with a backward hat on the road) and who said LGBT people getting to marry is the start of the Christian holocaust.

But JT, why give this single person more exposure? Glad you asked, hypothetical blog reader. It’s because swaths of people watch and like his videos. So it’s not just one guy, it’s mobs of people. What’s more, the stories he’s throwing about are being regurgitated by anti-gay Christians everywhere and need to be roundly rebutted.

And he’s got another one out they’re cheering. In this video Feuerstein cycles through a bunch of dishonest stories before urging Christians to fight marriage equality with guns – brandishing his own assault rifle as he does so:

And away we go…

1. “You’ve already seen the story floating around facebook about the man, the homosexual man, that’s already filed a lawsuit – $70,000,000 against two different bible publishers because he wants homosexuality removed from the scripture.”

“Already” implies that this has come as a result of Obergefell and is the natural consequence of LGBT people winning marriage rights. Welcome to propaganda town:

It’s propaganda because it happened seven years ago, not Monday of this week, but the story is absolutely true. Mr. Fowler did in fact file suit in Michigan against two publishers for printing versions of the Bible that were improperly translated, causing discrimination against homosexuals. There is NO case pending in any federal court by a gay man suing a Bible publisher. According to public record, the case was dismissed with prejudice in March of 2009 with no judgement, meaning Fowler lost and can’t re-file. Fowler’s hand written complaint and lack of resources prevented him from obtaining legal counsel, and from the beginning his case was doomed.

And he rightly lost…seven years ago. But a few scaremongers dredged it up to instill panic in the present in the minds of people who were bound to not do any research and they couldn’t have been happier to find Josh Feuerstein, a man whose foremost quality is not doing any research before confidently asserting his opinion.

But part of me sympathizes with the guy. I imagine if publishers were producing a set of moral guidelines that had multiple calls to murder Christians then the Josh Feuersteins of the world would be livid. But if it calls in their moral guidelines (which people claim to base their morals upon) to kill gay people then it’s all peachy. Hypocrites.

2. “…it’s about reconstitutionalizing a term so now it opens up the door for the left and the liberals to come after Christianity.”

I think he meant reconstituting.

Anyway, yes, he’s onto us: all these gay people getting married across the country don’t really love their partners, they’re just out to “get” Christians, presumably by having the audacity to not let Christians who’ve never met them or their partner dictate their personal lives. The jerks.

The irony here is that Feuerstein’s crowd has devoted mountains of effort to keeping LGBT people relegated to the role of second class citizens. Finally they’re legally unable to do so in terms of relationships and the projection begins: it’s the LGBT people out to get the Christians, not the other way around.

3. “It’s never been about equal rights because civil unions gave them equal rights.”

Wrong. There’s a long list of things that marriage covers that civil unions don’t. For instance, Social Security survivor’s benefits can only go to the surviving spouse of a marriage. That’s why when Judge Scott Crabtree tossed Colorado’s gay marriage ban he said:

“The fact is that those in a civil union do not and cannot obtain the same benefits and protections of federal law as married couples including filing joint tax returns, Family Medical Leave Act benefits, and facing loss of social security and veterans benefits. … “If civil unions were somehow the equivalent of marriage, there would be no real need for this second tier relationship. “Thus, the Court finds that confining same-sex couples to civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans.”

If you want more details, click here. But that’s the short of it.

Again, this is a pretty basic fact with which everybody following the legal fight for marriage equality with any intellectual interest should have been familiar. As with evolution, Feuerstein clearly does not fall into that category. It seems Feuerstein is more concerned with voicing opinions than with making sure those opinions are based in fact.

4. “I’ll prove it to you. Do you realize that this last week a judge ordered a $135,000 fine against a baker who refused to bake a gay wedding cake.”

Yes, because in Oregon the state’s non-discrimination laws cover LGBT citizens. That means if Josh Feuerstein owns a restaurant it can’t kick out Christians, black people, Italians, or LGBT people on the basis of religion, race, creed, or sexual preference.

If the bakery in question provides cakes they have to do it for Christians, black people, Italians, and LGBT people. Bakers can’t deny service because the couple won’t let them govern their private lives.

So the baker broke the law, just as surely as it would’ve been broken if they’d refused to bake a cake for a couple because the couple was interracial. They continued to defy the law and got fined as any other business (which is what they were being tried as) would be for violating the state’s non-discrimination laws.

The state can’t go into your house and make you violate your religious tenets, but for-profit businesses are subject to laws, including nondiscrimination laws. This isn’t discrimination against Christians, it’s enforcing non-discrimination laws on a business (that happens to be run by a couple bigoted Christians who, for some reason, think their Christianity absolves them of the responsibility to follow the state’s laws).

5. “Really? We’re oppressing them?”

Yes. You’re allowed to marry the consenting adult you love but they aren’t. You have more leeway with your personal autonomy and enjoy more rights than they. That’s…oppression. See point #3 about the rights/benefits conveyed through marriage that you are still trying to deny to LGBT people.

6. “To top it all off, there’s a pastor in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho that they’re telling him that if he does not marry gay couples they’re threatening him with arrest and imprisonment.”

He’s referring to the story of a for-profit business called The Hitching Post which made its money by putting on weddings. I’ll repeat: the Hitching Post is a for profit company and is therefore bound by the Coeur d’Alene nondiscrimination policy. Feuerstein is trying to make it sound like the city is going into churches to tell pastors they must perform gay weddings when that is absolutely not the case. But the pastor who owns and runs the Hitching Post has turned it into a business, and businesses are subject to non-discrimination laws.

The owners of the Hitching Post were told this was the case and they even acknowledged being aware of this. Even then, the owners of that for-profit business (repeated to ram that thought home), Donald and Lynn Knapp, still managed to confuse being subject to nondiscrimination laws with being under “constant, coercive, and substantial threats to violate their religious beliefs.”

Though they have not yet been found in violation of the ordinance, the Knapps have filed a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order against the policy. They are represented by the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and allege that they are now under “a constant, coercive, and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines” for refusing to offer wedding services to same-sex couples.

Yeah, I have religious beliefs that stipulate I should drive at least 10 mph over the speed limit, maybe more. The government is also constantly coercing me to violate my religious beliefs. Somehow I get by, because laws meant to protect all citizens are there for a reason. The protection of all citizens shouldn’t bow before your specific, personal, oh-so-special religious beliefs. Religious beliefs guarantee you the right to conduct your own life in accordance with your religious creed, they don’t guarantee you the right to oppress or otherwise fuck with other people. Gay people shouldn’t be made second class citizens just because your religious beliefs require it to be so. In that case, you’re literally arguing that laws should be based on what you believe, not what’s best for all its peoples. So much for religion being good for the society as a whole (instead of just good for followers of that religion).

Yeah, the owners are pissing and moaning that they’ll have to shut down their business, but who is to blame here? If businesses break laws, they are burdened. A restaurant might have to shut down if it doesn’t measure up to health code standards. The solution isn’t to exempt it from health code standards, it’s for the owners to abide by the appropriate regulations.

If a restaurant owner in the civil rights era said he would have to shut down his business because he was unwilling to desegregate the restaurant’s water fountains, would anybody think he was a victim? Of course not. The solution isn’t for the owners to be exempted from nondiscrimination laws, it’s for them to serve everybody equally. If virtually any Christian were presented with this scenario they’d immediately recognize the hypothetical business owner as exactly the type of person for whom laws specifically designed to protect minorities from bigotry were created.

But the Hitching Post couple is worse than that. They’re like a restaurant owner who flat out refuses to serve black people, and argues that his bigotry is special because it’s drawn from his religion. This has actually happened. In 1968 a South Carolina restaurant owner did argue before the SCOTUS that he shouldn’t have to serve black people on account of his religious beliefs. The man was Maurice Bessinger who owned Piggie Park BBQ.

The attorney representing the petitioners suing Piggie Park also addressed in court the “First Amendment religious privilege claim that petitioner asserted that his religion required him” to deny service to black customers. “I’m just a fair man. I want to be known as a hard-working, Christian man that loves God and wants to further (God’s) work throughout the world as I have been doing throughout the last 25 years.”

The SCOTUS ruled 8-0 against him (Justice Marshall recused himself). There’s your precedent: you don’t get to discriminate as a business even if you think god is telling you to.

And now we have these Hitching Post people arguing that their bigotry against gay people shouldn’t be subject to nondiscrimination laws because they’re discriminating because of the love of Jesus. Tough shit. If Maurice Bessinger didn’t get to do it, neither do you. If you want to discriminate start a church, not a business. In America minorities are guaranteed equality, and if your business is going to take advantage of public roads and sidewalks to get people to your business, you don’t get to discriminate through your business.

6a. “Really? That’s his first amendment right to refuse.”

Wrong. First amendment rights are guaranteed to people, not businesses. That’s why Maurice Bessinger lost. It’s why the Knapps lost. If he was operating in his capacity as a pastor doing weddings, then he would never have to marry anybody he didn’t want to marry whether it was because they were black, Jewish, or gay. But when he’s doing it as a for-profit business (is this getting through to you?) then his business is subject to the same non-discrimination laws that made segregated water fountains a thing of the past.

7. Mid-video assessment.

In each case Josh has left out important details that nullify his arguments. Not only is this dishonest, if he has to make things up in order to stoke outrage that points to a lack of legit things for him to be upset about. But rather than just not being upset he’s prepared to bear false witness to try and rile up others Josh Feuerstein is counting on people not to know the facts of these cases. In short, he’s attempted to play his fellow Christians like a cheap fiddle and so many of his fellow Christians have not disappointed him.

Whether you’re atheist, Christian, or whatever, with regard to Josh Feuerstein it would be wise in the future to remember how he operates.

8. “Well check this out, this is one pastor who will not bow.”

What? You’re not going to get gay married? Yeah, way to rebel, slugger.

9. “Because my first amendment right is guaranteed by my second amendment right.”

Wrong. Your first amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution which appoints the SCOTUS as the arbiter of which laws are constitutional. That body has ruled that the constitutional rights of LGBT people, not Christians, were being violated by unjust laws.

What’s more, the first amendment rights of the people in every story you threw out were not being violated.

Having a gun guarantees that you have the power to hurt somebody. It says nothing about whether you’re oppressed, whether you’re a psychopath, or whether you’re some impulsive, self-important jackass hacked off at not getting his way since guns serve both masters equally. From John Wilkes Booth to Charles J. Guiteau to Leon Cjolgosz to every pissy adult who believed a gun was a magic wand that would make everything all better, horrible people have ended lives rather than fighting through the means to change laws outlined in that Constitution you claim to love before getting to sit in prison spending the rest of their lives seeing how they didn’t change a thing beyond making the world a little darker, a little scarier.

As John Weidman wrote: angry men don’t write the rules and guns don’t right the wrongs.

And that’s what Josh Feuerstein apparently wants to be: an ill-informed derpfuck who thinks he and his ilk are above the law because they’re Christians. The message isn’t, “Do what I say because I have the best arguments” it’s, “Do what I say or I’ll hurt you.” In short, he’s taken the Christian game of “Believe these outlandish stories, not because they make sense, but because you’ll burn for eternity if you don’t” and transposed it onto a national debate – and I use the word “debate” loosely since any semblance of a debate tends to dissolve when one side begins threatening the other. Feuerstein is willing to try and scare people into obedience rather than playing fair as the marriage-equality crowd has done for the last few decades to earn their legal rights.

And what if some devotee to Feuerstein hauls off and shoots a judge or their gay neighbor? Oh sure, Feuerstein won’t fire the first shot, but he’ll sure encourage others to do it. And what happens when they do? I hope we never get the chance to find out, but I know where my money would be if I were a betting man: he’d change his tune really fast. It’s one thing to bluster about rebellion, it’s another when you are indirectly responsible for the death your political opponents rather than trying to change the laws with which you disagree via the proper channels.

But boy, fundamentalist Christians (the ones who tend to drone on about how their faith is full of love) sure do love that violent rhetoric at the time.

10. “…we’re not going to let them demonize us…”

You just implied you were willing to end people’s lives because you lost a legal dispute and you’re worried about other people demonizing you? It seems you scarcely need any help.

11. “If you stand for freedom…”

But not the freedom for adults to choose their own spouse. No, he means the “freedom” to deny other people the freedom to choose their own spouse.

Conclusion

Like with my post dissecting Josh’s evolution video, it’s important to defeat a person’s arguments with facts. But sometimes what a person says is so vile, so petulant, so antithetical to fair/reasoned debate, and so contemptuous of the well-being/safety of others, that all you can say is fuck that guy.

Josh Feuerstein has gone from being a person known for having 100% confidence in his opinions after doing 0% research to inform them to being a person inciting not only hatred against an entire demographic, but violence against them. It’s hard to tell if he’s a legit psychopath or such a spoiled child that he thinks violence is an acceptable response to not getting your way. Either way, people like him are the reason aliens want nothing to do with planet earth.

And if you’re a Christian, even if you’re one who thinks gay marriage is an abomination, you must surely think that your religion and your ethics deserve better than a bunch of dishonest stories and threats of violence.

But maybe you don’t. As of this writing 78,433 people have liked Feuerstein’s video on facebook. And I would be willing to bet a tremendous sum of money that virtually all of them are full-on believers in Jesus who think their religion, more than any source, injects love into the world – and who are willing to sunder the love of gay people to prove it.