I finished reading your article last night and am now taking the time to respond in detail. You made a number of solid points, many of which I would not disagree with. However, I think the conclusions you draw are extreme, and some of your reasoning faulty.
You rightfully criticize Rubin for giving softball interviews to disreputable people like Tommy Sotomayor and Mike Cernovich. I won’t defend Rubin on this point. I don’t object to his interviewing them, but not confronting these guests with their past statements and positions did a disservice to his listeners.
However, these guests do not reflect the overall character of his show. When I looked over his guests for my American Thinker piece, I totaled 119 guests. Accounting for Milo’s three appearances, that made seven total alt-right connected guests. If we expand our category to include fringe and extreme guests, our number increases to around ten.
In determining the character of Dave Rubin’s show we need to look at the totality of the evidence, and not just his most extreme guests.
You also repeatedly took quotes out of context and attempted to portray Rubin’s beliefs as more extreme than they likely are. Rubin has never explicitly said he rejects the 1964 civil rights act. He said he doesn’t think a Christian Baker should be forced to cater a gay wedding.
As you well know federal civil rights law does not cover sexual orientation as a protected category. Many conservatives believe it should be expanded to cover sexual orientation, but with reasonable exemptions for religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
You do this repeatedly throughout your article. You selectively quote mine Rubin’s public statements, provide no context, and give his quotes the most extreme interpretation you can.
For the sake of brevity, I will stop here. You have legitimate criticisms of the Rubin Report and Dave Rubin, but you take those criticism way to far. In trying to justify your extreme criticism of Rubin, you twisted the facts to fit your narrative.