Starbucks banning LGBT decorations as Bud Light Effect kicks in (& other stories)

A roundup of news and commentary from around the interwebs.


This looks to me like yet another fake LGBT “hate crime”: “‘I never yelled towards the girl’: Kelowna man accused of accosting child at track meet denies allegations.”


We’ll call this the Bud Light Effect: “Starbucks Is Banning Pride Decorations, Workers Union Alleges.”


This is a chilling and powerful video from Choice42 exposing the reality of IVF:

For those who want more information on the ethics of IVF, check out my conversation with Stephanie Gray.


At the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley notes that we are erasing women from our language in the name of gender ideology:

A May 30 story from The Canadian Press warned that “Pregnant people should be especially vigilant when wildfires pollute the air.” The report used terms such as “pregnant women” when quoting doctors but outside of quotes, the Canadian Press copy used the term pregnant people as if those who are not women can become pregnant.

Similarly, a report by CBC’s The National on May 23 avoided terms like women and opted for pregnant people or pregnant individuals when discussing the problem of cannabis use for morning sickness. While the report did include comments from a mother of two on the issue, any other references were about “pregnant people” or “pregnant individuals.”

Read the whole thing.


From the New York Post: “Gov. Kathy Hochul appoints Seth Marnin as first openly male transgender judge in US history.”


Porn is turning kids into sexual predators. I’ve been reporting on this for years—and now there’s more evidence:


More soon.

2 thoughts on “Starbucks banning LGBT decorations as Bud Light Effect kicks in (& other stories)

  1. Jeanie says:

    What do you make of Dr. Hall’s insistence that porn is not a moral issue but rather a health issue? Should we be grateful for any resistance to porn, or does removing the moral aspect handicap the fight to the point that failure is inevitable?

    • Jonathon Van Maren says:

      I think it is both, of course–but I think pointing out the moral aspect ie the abuse of women etc. is more powerful than the health argument, myself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *