Franklin Graham Quite Upset At Target

Franklin Graham Quite Upset At Target August 14, 2015

Franklin Graham, the bigoted halfwit offspring of Billy Graham, is very, very upset that Target is no longer going to label toys as being for only boys or only girls. This will apparently destroy human civilization and bring down the wrath of God or some such rot.

The Washington Post reports that Target will stop using gender specific signage in their stores. In order to be gender-neutral, they won’t be separating things like toys and bedding into boys’ and girls’ sections. Oh really? And they won’t be using pink and blue colors to identify sexes. I think Target may be forgetting who has made their stores strong. It’s not gender-neutral people out there—it’s working American families, fathers and mothers with boys and girls they love. What’s next? Are they going to try to make people believe that pink or blue baby showers are politically incorrect? I have news for them and for everyone else—God created two different genders. Jesus said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female (Matthew 19:4). You can’t get any clearer than that. If you agree, share in the comments below—and let Target know what you think. Let them know that you are perfectly willing to shop where the genders God created are appreciated.

But of course, Matthew 19:4 is speaking of people, not toys. For a specific passage on toys, you have to go to St. Paul’s letter to the Dumbassians, Chapter 3:

For lo, when thou goest to the big box department store, remain faithful to the word of the Lord as expressed by the signs in the toy aisle. It is an abomination to the Lord to purchase a toy of pinkish hue for a young boy, for this shall surely result in him dancing on a float in a parade wearing assless chaps while singing It’s Raining Men. So too is it a sin to purchase a toy of blueish hue for a young girl, for this will lead her down a dark path of short haircuts and Indigo Girls concerts. Rather, purchase for her a Barbie doll, but not the Malibu Barbie, who is a known fornicator who should be stoned on her wedding day. And purchase for him a sword, that he should learn the manly art of killing so as to fulfill the genocidal orders of God.

King James Version, of course.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • GubbaBumpkin

    The word “toy” does not appear anywhere in the King james Version of the Bible. The word “gender” and derivative forms of it appear 5 times, but apparently the usage was different back then.

    Leviticus 19: 19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender
    with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed:
    neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

    So, we need to know what Graham was wearing when he made this statement.

    • Aegis

      The way that passage uses ‘gender’ and the way he’s using it to describe kids, I’m rather concerned about what he might not be wearing.

    • crocodog

      I think the part about not mixing fibres is just ancient washing instructions.

      Verily, verily, I say unto you, for Him that mixeth linen and wool there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, for surely the wool shall shrink in the hot wash.

  • CPT_Doom

    I suppose I should not be surprised at the ridiculous overreaction of the fundamentalists to this relatively minor change by Target, but seriously? I know these people believe in a rigid distinction between the two genders, and refuse to acknowledge those of us who are LGBTI, because we violate that strict binary, but freaking out because a boy might like an EZ Bake Oven or a girl might want some Lincoln Logs seems extreme even for them.

    • cassandraoftroy

      I had both an Easy Bake Oven and Lincoln Logs when I was a child, and I loved them. I guess that makes me the actual Antichrist.

  • Moarscienceplz

    What’s hilarious is to read some of the wingnut comments. They think that ALL gender separation will be removed, so their next pair of tighty-whiteys will be buried under a pile of lacy panties.
    If only we could get them to boycott the ballot box as easily.

    • Wanderin_Weeta

      Just remind them that ballot boxes are gender-neutral.

      • Lofgren

        I’m sure Franklin Graham is aorking to fix that right this minute.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I guess that if Target doesn’t label the gender of these toys, Graham would be unable to tell the difference on his own…

  • karmacat

    It used to be rose pink for boys and blue for girls because they thought rose was too strong a color for girls

    • TheBookOfDavid

      Of course, that was before god lifted his appendage of protection and smote our nation with a plague of cooties.

  • whheydt

    When my kids were small (the younger one will be 40 later this year), both the boy and the girl gots blues, greens, or greys for colors because my wife and I are both “cool eyed”. That is, we prefer cool colors (as the above list), rather than warm colors, like pink, red, orange, or brown.

  • Bad_homonym

    Small note. A co-worker of mine pointed out the redundancy of “assless chaps”. Is there another kind?

    • John Finkbiner

      Right, but I think the point is to emphasize that little or nothing is worn under the chaps. C.f. Google images search.

    • Whirlwitch

      In Britain, I hear most of the chaps have asses.

  • StevoR