Talk:Anita Bryant

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay? --Cracker^talk 11:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Moved by her Christian faith

How did Anita Bryant's Christian faith motivate her to lobby for hateful laws? Form as Jesus said, "Love the Lord the God above all others, and love thy neighbor as thyself." This has always mystified me ... Boethius 11:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

You've been misled by the liberal media. Please read the facts and feel free to suggest any factual additions or modifications. No one disputes that Bryant was inspired by her Christian faith, and the claims of her "hate" were much exaggerated for political purposes. Her legislative efforts were affirmed by the public and the court system.--Aschlafly 11:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't feel misled -- I suppose I just have a different notion of what counts as "love" and "hate" -- if you love someone, you would probably not wish to drum up legislation which will reduce that person's rights in a democratic society. At any rate, if (as appears certain), Ms. Bryant indeed felt "moved by her Christian faith" to do something, then that can and should be stated as a fact, so I don't see any reason to modify that particular passage. Boethius 14:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No one who is misled feels misled. The bible condemns homosexuality. If you love someone you would probably do all you can to get them to turn from their sin. And if you love your country you will likewise do all you can to prevent it from condoning sin. --BenjaminS 14:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Boethius, you seem to have assumed that laws opposing homosexual acts are "hateful". Is this correct? --Ed Poor 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I suppose that's arguable Ed, but she supported discrimination against gays. I would argue that is hateful. Murray 14:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Folks, opposing special legal rights group is not "hate" and does not mean one supports discrimination against that group.--Aschlafly 21:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Andy, opposing equal rights is hate.-AmesG_yo! 01:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I for one am doubtful Bryant was motivated by any benevolent urge to "soul-save" when she was campaigning against homosexuality. One need only look at her own words:

- "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children." - "I don't hate the homosexuals, but as a mother, I must protect my children from their evil influence."

To me, it seems as though Bryant was more concerned about "protecting" children than saving anyone's soul. And for that matter, I think this article is a little heavy on the "gays-and-liberal-media-ruined-her-career" rhetoric. I think there also needs to be a discussion of how even fellow Christians abandoned Bryant when she became divorced. That lack of support was just as vital to her fall from grace as the gay rights movement she unintentionally helped revive.--Hektor 10:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Category

Since this page is locked, can someone please add Women (the category) to it? Thanks.--Hsmom 08:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hatred is bad

Why would you spotlight a homophobe?-AmesG_yo! 13:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"Four self-proclaimed homosexuals slapped Bryant with a pie in her face during a speaking event in Des Moines, Iowa." Could someone please add a possible date to this assault? From the article it sounds like it happened last week, not 30 years ago. -- Cracker_talk 13:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

And why do we even care about her? She sounds like a bigot, not a conservative.-AmesG_yo! 13:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I honestly don't understand why people don't spend more time at homeless shelters, feeding the hungry, providing medical care to the poor, delivering meals to the aged, and lobbying for legislation to help with these goals, rather than wasting so much time and effort on "gay stuff", but it's your time to do with you see fit.--PalMD^talk 14:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the video has a date, no?--Aschlafly 21:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

early?

In what sense was she an "early" opponent of homosexuality? History didn't begin in 1970. - Factcheck 18:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The Homosexual Agenda is a fairly recent event, of which I believe it is fair to say that Bryant was an early opponent. I remember reading that she was also a segregationist - I would research this more but the article is currently locked so I won't be able to add anything until this changes. Is there any way a lock can be imposed only for non-registered users? ATB 21:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Gee, I don't know. Think maybe she was a member of the KKK? Really, that's ridiculous to try to smear someone because you disagree with her position on the homosexual agenda.--Aschlafly 21:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I quite agree with her position on the homosexual agenda, and I apologize if you interpreted my comments in any other fashion. I was simply mentioning that it might be notable - especially on this socially conservative encyclopedia - to make note of her pro-white positions. Some preliminary research garnered a 70s article which stated that "in her interpretation of the Bible, Jews, Moslems, Pygmies and Eskimos are going to hell." This isn't Wikipedia; we can say what we want. ATB 23:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The Natural Consequences of Free Speech on the Free Market

When the Dixie Chicks - up to that point fairly popular country singers - foolishly angered one of their largest fan bases by criticizing President Bush, they were summarily "fired" by many people. It is perfectly all right for anyone to refuse to continue giving money to an entertainer who, for whatever reason, no longer entertains them.

So when a perfectly legal - and perfectly justified - boycott was called "censorship" by those who thought Natalie Maines and crew were being treated unfairly, I found the situation quite laughable.

In contrast to the Chicks' refusal to play by the rules of the entertainment market (please the fans), other singers and entertainers who may have controversial political views have remained silent. Others have even gained commercial success by mirroring the views of their target audience (for instance, Toby Keith). The Dixie Chicks suffered the natural consequences of Natalie's big mouth, and have no one but themselves to blame for failing to recognize demographic facts about their fan base.

In the case of Anita Bryant, we similarly saw a fairly popular singer take on a view that is and was by all accounts controversial. She has, however, no right to my money, or your money, unless you or I are satisfied with her product. So she spoke her mind, and was then predictably lambasted by the media and many sectors of the public. She had every right to do so, and it was certainly very rude of protesters to violate her person by assault via pie. But she has no right to any success, or money, unless she pleases those who will give it to her. Her only real complaint could be that a company that pulls sponsorship might be making a bad business decision: but so what? It is theirs to make, and who is she to criticize the autonomous decision of a company that must answer to the public's economic decisions? If a sponsor predicts that the controversy will hurt sales, why ought they not respond by distancing themselves from it? Their duties are to their shareholders, not to Ms. Bryant or her political/religious/moral views.

That's the way the free market works. Bryant may be right or wrong (I myself am disinclined to agree with many of her stated views), but she is merely an entertainer-turned-social-activist, like so many Hollywood stars. I'm not in the slightest concerned by what Madonna, or Anita Bryant, think about a very complicated moral question.--Philosophe 12:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)