What UU Should Know about the Johnson Amendment

 

What UU Should Know about the Johnson Amendment

slides

 

What UU Should Know about the Johnson Amendment
(slide 1)

OK, so let’s talk about politics, about non profits, 

about that fundamental principle of the separation 

of church and state and what something called the 

Johnson Amendment has to do with any of it.  

This has been in the news recently, and you probably 

missed it, well, because there’s a lot more “news” 

going on.  But it’s important to know, so 

we are going to share with you today what “UU” 

should know, about real rules of engagement 

with social action and politics.  

Let’s dive right in.

First, let’s talk about the separation of church and state.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state/
(slide 2)
This concept of the separation of church and state, 

goes back to 1791, 

when we ratified the bill of rights

The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging 

the freedom of speech, or of the press; 

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, 

the clause is often interpreted to mean that the 

Constitution requires the separation of church and state.

Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island used the metaphor 

of “a wall or hedge of separation” between the 

“wilderness of the world” and “the garden 

of the church. Williams believed that any government 

involvement in the church would corrupt the church.  

He was banished for preaching ideas of religious freedom.  

He helped establish in Providence a government with 

limited power that only addressed civil matters.  

This was a revolutionary concept in a time when many governments 

were established with divine 

rights to rule and was influential in establishing the democratic 

governance of our new country.    

(slide 3)

This brings me to one of my favorite stories, the Cheshire 

Mammoth Cheese Wheel.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 

of Virginia fought against state support 

and taxation of the Anglican Church, which had long been 

established in the colony.  They argued that 

compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they 

did not follow violated their natural 

right to religious liberty. 

They were supported by other denominations, like the Baptists, 

Presbyterians, and Quakers. Which helped support the addition 

of religious liberty in the bill of rights. 

https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/mammoth-cheese/
https://npg.si.edu/blog/big-cheese-presidential-gifts-mammoth-proportions

In 1802, In appreciation of his support of religious liberty, 

the Baptists of Cheshire Massachusetts made a 

“mammoth cheese wheel”. Made by free born farmers, 

their wives and daughters, It has the milk 

of the 900 cows in the county.  

It was formed in a 6ft cider press, and had engraved on it 

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”. 

(Jefferson’s personal motto).  It weighed 1235 lbs and 

was delivered in a wagon drawn by 6 horses.  

Jefferson by policy refused gifts while in office, so he 

paid the Baptists $200 for the wheel.  Fun fact, 

(with their recent discovery in the new world),  

this marks the first recorded use of the word “Mammoth” 

to describe something large. 

A local newspaper joked that bakers in New York were 

now creating an oven to make a giant loaf of bread and 

glass blowers were making a giant wine bottle 

for a fine American porter.  It remained at the residence 

for several years, deteriorating in quality until it 

was reportedly dumped in the Potomac river some time after 1805.   

(slide 4)

So we’ve established that the first amendment  is interpreted 

to mean that the Constitution requires the separation 

of church and state.  But as we know, over time 

these laws require interpretations by the courts.  

So this brings us to post World War II America, 

and Public School Religious Education.  

A couple of noteworthy cases for the interpretation

 of this clause include 
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

A New Jersey statute gave school boards the authority 

to reimburse parents for the cost of busing their children 

to private schools, including Catholic and other 

parochial schools. Everson, a taxpayer, challenged this 

law as an impermissible expenditure under

the establishment clause.

The Supreme Court ruled as constitutional because it did 

not breach the “wall of separation” between church and state — 

and held that the establishment clause 

of the First Amendment applied to state and local 

governments as well as to the federal government.

Justice Hugo L. Black  stated
“New Jersey cannot . . . exclude individual[s] . . . 

because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the 

benefits of public welfare legislation.”



Another pivotal case you may know as “The Lemon Test”
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lemon-test/
 In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) - the court 

established a three-pronged test.  
It must have “a secular legislative purpose,”

it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, 

and it must not foster “an excessive government 

entanglement with religion.”
This was abandoned in 2022 and is currently

 interpreting the establishment clause “by ‘

reference to historical practices and understandings.’”
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
upholding the right of a public school football coach 

to offer a prayer on the 50-yard line after a game. 
This was established on the principle that neither 

teachers nor students shed their First Amendment 

rights at the schoolhouse gate

So we see just a couple examples here of how 

the separation clause has been interpreted differently over time.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/church_state_historical.htm

(slide 5)
This brings us to The Johnson Amendment.   Now as I said earlier, 

this has been in the news recently, because of 

recent changes of interpretation of this law.  
The relationship between church and state is complicated, 

and you have probably heard people say that non profit 

and church organizations must be “non partisan” 

or not engage in politics.  
This is the Amendment that establishes those rules 

and as you have seen from the previous cases, 

it is open to interpretation.  So let's get into it.
First, what is the Johnson Amendment?  
The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, 

since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit 

organizations from endorsing or opposing 

political candidates. ranging from charitable 

foundations to universities and churches. 
The amendment is named for then-Senator and future 

president Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced 

it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954. 
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity 

by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization 

as one "which does not participate in, 

or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing 

of statements), any political campaign 

on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage 

in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) 

and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. 

The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between 

advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation.
(in simple terms - Issues not Parties)
https://afj.org/article/fact-check-president-trump-has-not-repealed-the-johnson-amendment/

(slide 6)
So What Changed (and what did not):
What changed:
May 2017 Executive Order: Trump signed an executive order 

directing the Treasury Department to avoid penalizing 

religious organizations for engaging in speech 

about "moral or political issues from a religious perspective".
In a July 7, 2025, court filing, the IRS carved out a significant 

new exception to the Johnson Amendment, saying churches 

are allowed to endorse political 

candidates in their "usual channels of communication" 

with no tax-related consequences
Religious  services, concerning electoral politics viewed 

through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]

’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’ 

within the ordinary meaning of those words,” the filing said.
The filing was part of a joint motion by the IRS, the 

National Religious Broadcasters, and two Texas churches, 

to settle a lawsuit through a consent judgment.

What Did Not Change:
Repealing the Johnson Amendment would either require 

an act of Congress or the Supreme Court ruling that the 

law is unconstitutional. Neither of these 

possibilities have occurred, so the law remains in place. 
IRS does not have the authority to repeal legislation 

like the Johnson Amendment through a consent judgment. 

Therefore, no changes to IRS policies or the laws 

governing political activity for nonprofits have 

been finalized or fully enacted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html
(slide 7)
Who Advocated for this Change?
Starting in 2008, a group now called the Alliance Defending Freedom, 

which worked in recent years to help 

overturn Roe v. Wade, tried to manufacture a 

court challenge to the constitutionality of the law. 

The group organized pastors to speak about candidates 

and elections from the pulpit, a plan intended to provoke 

the I.R.S. into a legal confrontation with 

churches for speaking out in violation of their tax-exempt status.

Among the advocates of that plan was Mike Johnson, 

then a conservative lawyer and now the speaker of the House.
“I think we would defend that as a constitutional right 

to free speech,” Mr. Johnson, said in 2008 about the effort.

Over four years, the group organized some 4,000 pastors 

in the campaign, including some who sent their sermons to 

the I.R.S., inviting a crackdown.
https://sidewithlove.org/ourstories/2025/7/15/side-with-love-denounces-irs-undermining-of-the-johnson-amendment
https://www.uua.org/pressroom/press-releases/irs-response-religious-pluralism
(slide 8)
UUA and Side With Love - Response 
Our Sacred Duty is to Protect Democracy and Religious Pluralism 

Affirms Commitment to Separation of Church and State

Our faith has a long history of faithful statements and resolutions 

that unequivocally support the separation of church and state. 

As such, we are deeply concerned 

by the IRS’s actions which would further erode this fundamental 

principle and democracy itself. 
The UUA maintains adherence to this principle and calls on all 

people of faith and conscience to uphold this cornerstone of democracy.
Our shared values of pluralism and interdependence mean 

that a multiplicity of religious voices must thrive for our 

nation to remain on solid ground. 
As we face a rising tide of authoritarianism and the infiltration 

of white Christian nationalism into government and public policy, 

now is the time to re-assert these values.


We understand that religious institutions and congregations play 

a role in shaping and advocating for the values and principles of our members – 

values that will in turn 

shape the public square, the democratic processes that UUs hold sacred, 

and the public morality 

that helps guide this nation. 
We believe these are appropriate roles for UU congregations – 

and all religious organizations – to play. What is not appropriate 

is for religious leaders to use the 

authority invested in their status to endorse political candidates. 
To do so becomes a corruption of the religious leaders’ 

role and, in fact, harms our ability to help guide the people 

who turn to us for guidance and support.
(slide 9)
UUA has some great  resources on how to be 

“Prophetic, Not Partisan,” 
If you really want to dive into what you can and can’t 

or should and shouldn’t do, the “The Real Rules” — 

is a handy guidebook on appropriate political activity 

and justice organizing.  

It details out almost every scenario you can think of 

so when you ask Can I do that?  

It has an answer.  

But here are the basics broken down into a list.
 WHAT’S ALLOWED FOR 501(C)3 ORGANIZATIONS
The UUA, UU congregations and organizations can:
Engage in issue advocacy and organizing for justice
Conduct voter education
Voter access through voter registration
Get Out the Vote drives
Combat voter suppression
Support or oppose ballot initiatives
Educate candidates on issues
Sponsor candidate forums
Prepare and distribute non-partisan voter guides
Lobby elected officials
Host a variety of activities at our congregations
The UUA, UU congregations and organizations cannot:
Have advocacy as their only activity
Endorse or oppose candidates running for elected office
Intervene in campaigns to influence the outcome of an election

Progressive people of faith can be powerful and prophetic 

without being partisan. 
We can engage our neighbors, educate our communities, 

mobilize voters, rally around ballot initiatives, and shape 

the public discourse with values-based framing, 

rooted in our theology and principles. 
Electoral cycles offer heightened opportunities to engage 

and inspire people, mobilize around key issues, and to 

strengthen democracy, and win real advances 

on key issues on the ballot.

(slide 10)
https://sidewithlove.org/actioncenter
Side with Love 
is our UUA Action center and here are some examples

 of the way the UUA encourages us to engage with these political issues.  

How do we Side With Love? (sidewithlove.org/)

Our intersectional justice priorities are:
Climate Justice (inclusive of Indigenous sovereignty and Climate 

Resilience) with Create Climate Justice
Democracy and Electoral Justice (inclusive of Voting Rights and 

electoral participation) with UU the Vote
Decriminalization (inclusive of Racial Justice and Immigration Justice) 

with Side With Love
LGBTQIA+ and Gender Justice (inclusive of reproductive justice 

and abortion access) with UPLIFT Action

The work that we do together to build a world in which all of us are 

free and thriving is interrelated. When we ground our spirits, 

grow our skills, and act strategically 

for justice in deep relationship with each other and our Movements, 

we choose to Side With Love.
Action Center is a place where we unite in work towards a world 

where we all thrive. Together we take action, Side With Love, 

and make deep impacts in this critical moment.


(slide 11)
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-share-your-rights
Now to protect yourself while engaging on these issues, 

here are some basics from the ACLU.  There is a short 

and a longer version on your screen, and 

these can all be found at ACLU.org

Know Your Protest Rights:
You don’t need a permit to protest in streets or on sidewalks 

if you’re not obstructing traffic or access to buildings.
You have the right to photograph anything in plain view, 

including police.
If stopped by the police, ask if you’re free to go.  

If yes, calmly walk away.
If arrested, ask for a lawyer immediately.  

Don’t sign, say or agree to anything without a lawyer present. 

(slide 12)
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/trends-and-policy-issues/protecting-johnson-amendment-and-nonprofit-nonpartisanship
And finally, why does this matter?  Here’s some thoughts 

from the council for non profits.
Our society is better today because charitable nonprofit 

organizations operate as safe havens from the caustic 

partisanship that is bedeviling our country, places 

where people can come together to solve community problems. 
Repeal or revision of the law would damage the integrity and 

effectiveness of all charitable nonprofits and foundations.
Attempts to repeal or weaken the Johnson Amendment would

have the effect of politicizing and thereby erasing the public’s 

high trust in charities, houses of worship, 

and foundations to benefit politicians and paid political consultants. 


And there is plenty of Support
The majority of organizations support keeping the Johnson 

Amendment and protecting nonprofit nonpartisanship, 

as reflected in the Community Letter in Support 

of Nonpartisanship, signed by more than 5,800 organizations in all 50 states, 
in the Faith Voices letter signed by more than 4,300 faith leaders, 

in the separate letter signed by more than 100 denominations 

and major religious organizations, 

and in letters from the law enforcement community. 
In addition, polls show that 72% of the public support 

keeping the Johnson Amendment in place and nearly 

90% of evangelical leaders say it is wrong for 

preachers to endorse candidates from the pulpit.

So, the short answer, can we talk about politics from the pulpit? 

It’s complicated. Will someone stop us, probably not.  

But should we mix our political parties 

and our religious freedom?  In the spirit of 

Thomas Jefferson and those cheese loving Baptists, 

I would uphold our values of religious freedom 

and keep that a wall or hedge of separation” between the 

“wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.  
(slide 13)  Thank you. Any questions.

Back to Baltimore - 200 years of the American Unitarian Association

 

Back to Baltimore - 200 years of the American Unitarian Association

By Beth Anz

 

Thanks to uua.org and uuworld.org and other sources for all this information and credit to all their authors.

https://www.uuworld.org/articles/baltimore-william-ellery-channing-sermon-unitarian-universalism-history-general-assembly

https://www.uua.org/beliefs/who-we-are/history/aua-200th-anniversary 

Beth Anz is the Director and Service Leader at UUCB. She enjoys juggling her many hats. 

 

 

This year’s UU GA (General Assembly) happened in the 

great city of Baltimore to celebrate the 200th anniversary 

of the American Unitarian Association.  

It is in Baltimore where we American Unitarians trace 

our origins from the famed “Baltimore Sermon” of 

William Ellery Channing which led to the formation of the AUA.  

But before we dive into the American Unitarian “mic drop”of its time, 

let’s go back in time, and start with the basics.

First thanks to uua.org and uuworld.org and other sources 

for all this information and credit to all their authors.  

You may already know that we as Unitarian Universalists 

come from two distinct religious traditions, the Unitarians 

and the Universalists.  Here is a very condensed history 

of how we started and became Unitarian Universalists.  

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religious tradition formed 
in the consolidation of these two traditions. In America, 
the Universalist Church of America was founded in 1793, 
and the American Unitarian Association (AUA) in 1825. 
In May 2025, we celebrated the 200th anniversary 
of the founding of the AUA.

First a simplified overview of our other tradition, 
Universalism, which is defined by a belief in universal 
salvation (that we are all worthy and all saved by God).  
Universalists believe that the God of love would 
not create a person knowing that person would be 
destined for eternal damnation. 

They concluded that all people must be destined 
for salvation. This was a reaction to some 
beliefs of the time that humans were 
inherently sinful and damned.  
Unitarians rejected the idea that our 
lives are already predestined and that a 
loving god would cause eternal damnation.   
They believed that everyone would eventually 
be saved as a loving God shows mercy and compassion 
(and so should we).  

Our other legacy tradition, Unitarianism, 
which we are talking about today, traditionally 
focuses on reason, social justice, and personal experience.  
Jesus as a (possibly) divinely inspired teacher 
to humanity, is shown as an example for his life 
and good deeds more than his divinity and resurrection.   
Good examples of Unitarian worldviews 
include A Christmas Carol and Little Women. 

Unitarian Universalism later named direct experience 
as an important Source of religious and spiritual 
understanding, an idea that originated with 
nineteenth-century Transcendentalism and Universalism.  
Unitarians explored the religious meaning of the 
experiences of their lives through sharing of personal 
stories and reflection, often in small groups, 
just as we do in service today. 

 These two American traditions merged in 1961 
to create a new religion "Unitarian Universalism"  
that took aspects of both faiths.  
We believe as a living tradition that 
we should review our guiding values frequently 
(which we did just last year), 
so that we continue to grow and evolve with 
a changing world.  One of the taglines of the UU 
faith is "deeds not creeds".  

 We talk to each other about how to live our 
values in the world and encourage a freedom 
of religious thought. 

 Both religions have long histories and have 
contributed important theological concepts 
that remain central to Unitarian Universalism.  
Since 1961, Unitarian Universalism has nurtured 
its Unitarian and Universalist heritages to 
provide a strong voice for social justice 
and liberal religion.  In fact, Unitarians were 
known as the “liberal church” before Channing 
owned his critic’s insult and claimed the word 
“Unitarian” for this liberal faith.

 The UU commitment to building Beloved Community 
has roots on both the Unitarian and Universalist 
sides of our tradition. 

 Beginning with the 1648 Cambridge Platform 
signed by English settlers in Dedham, Massachusetts, 
our self-governing congregations have gathered 
in the spirit of mutual love. In the late nineteenth 
century, Universalism’s core message that all 
are saved through God’s love had expanded to 
embrace the idea that the kingdom of Heaven 
is reflected in love for one another.

Both Universalists and Unitarians were involved 
in the Social Gospel movement, in which Christianity 
is practiced by serving those on the margins of society. 
Today’s UUs build community within congregations and 
also work for the liberation of all people.

So when do we get to Baltimore?

Six years before the AUA was chartered, the 
Rev. William Ellery Channing turned the term "Unitarian," 
until then used pejoratively by religious 
conservatives in New England, on its head, 
and as we would say today, it went viral. 

His sermon “Unitarian Christianity,” 
given at First Unitarian Church of Baltimore, 
MD in May of 1819, used the word to name a 
liberal faith that rejected the commanding 
trinitarian God of Calvinism in favor of 
an understanding of Jesus as human, not God, 
among many other radical and deeply influential 
ideas and embracing the name Unitarian.  

It was the mic drop of its time.  
And it brought together a movement.

In the ninety minutes of what’s commonly 
called the “Baltimore Sermon,” Channing 
laid out tenets of the new faith: 
the unity of God in contrast to the idea 
of a Trinity; the use of reason in 
understanding religion and interpreting 
the Bible; a concept of Jesus as human 
rather than human and divine; a rejection 
of Calvinism’s idea of depraved humanity 
where salvation was reserved for a select few.  

Channing preached about a benevolent, 
loving God who had endowed humanity with 
innate goodness, rationality, and the wisdom 
to discern between good and evil. 

In the hour-and-a-half-long address, 
Channing took on several arguments. 
First, he established reason as valid and 
necessary for the interpretation of 
scripture—not as the only basis for religious 
belief, but as an aid to revelation, for reading 
and understanding the meaning of the Bible.  

 He said “Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture 
is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, 
in the language of men, and that its meaning is to 
be sought in the same manner as that of other books... 
With these views of the Bible, we feel it our 
bounden duty to exercise our reason upon 
it perpetually; to compare, to infer, 
to look beyond the letter to the spirit.”

Next, he laid out four reason-based conclusions 
of Unitarian Christians. He began with the 
unity of God, as opposed to the doctrine of 
the Trinity. Next, he postulated Christ as 
fully human, as opposed to having two natures, 
human and divine. Then he spoke of the moral 
perfection of God, which negated such doctrines 
as Original Sin and the eternal suffering of 
some while others were elected to salvation.

Finally, he talked about the purpose of Jesus' 
mission on earth. He rejected the idea that Jesus' 
death atoned for human sin, allowing God to forgive 
humanity. Channing admitted Unitarians differed 
on Jesus' role in human salvation. Some, he said, 
saw Jesus' life as a moral example. Others 
understood Jesus' death leading humans to 
repentance and virtue. 

Yet, he said, Unitarians did not consider Christ 
and his death as a blood atonement for human sin.  
Christian virtue had its foundation in the moral 
nature or conscience of humans, defined by love of God, 
love of Christ, and moral living.

The wealthy men who a year earlier had established 
what’s now called First Unitarian Church of 
Baltimore knew exactly what they were doing when 
they invited Channing to preach at the ordination 
of its first minister, Rev. Jared Sparks. 
They made sure Channing’s seminal message would 
reach as many people as possible, inviting many 
leading liberal clergy and arranging for the 
sermon to be quickly printed and disseminated 
around the country and in Europe.

He was a sensation, drawing large crowds 
and creating buzz.  So much so, that six years 
later, it led to the formation of the 
American Unitarian Association.

On May 25, 1825, the idea of creating the 
American Unitarian Association was presented 
to the Berry Street Conference. The next day, 
May 26th, the AUA was officially formed with 
the approval of bylaws. (In a fine coincidence, 
the British and Foreign Unitarian Association 
was also formed on May 25, 1825!)

In the beginning, only individuals could join the AUA.  
In fact, William Ellery Channing was asked to serve as 
the AUA’s first President — and Channing refused, 
because he felt that by accruing power, 
the institution would take power away from individuals.  
American Unitarians also did not evangelize their faith 
in the traditional ways, although they did share pamphlets 
and print outs of sermons with others.  
Which meant they only reached literate populations 
and therefore grew mainly in cities and not in rural areas.

But the legacy of William Ellery Channing and 
Unitarianism continues in our faith today.

In his second-most-famous sermon, “Likeness to God,” 
Channing in 1838 argued that humans are made in 
the image of God, which later led him to the idea 
of the divine spark in each of us, Kirk explains. 
That “later leads us to the inherent worth and 
dignity of everyone”— one of the Seven Principles 
of Unitarian Universalism that were adopted in 
1984—which, in turn, “leads us to Love at the Center,” 
a core tenet of the statement of UU Values 
adopted at general assembly in 2024.  

Early Unitarians like Channing helped to 
shape our core values today, and ground us 
in our values, especially when we see them 
under attack in the world today. 
 
The first principle adopted by the Unitarians 
in 1887 was “We believe that to love the 
Good and to live the Good is the supreme 
thing in religion”.  
Today we share that value with our statement a
dopted last year.  “Love is the power that 
holds us together and is at the center 
of our shared values. We are accountable 
to one another for doing the work of 
living our shared values through the 
spiritual discipline of Love.”

As we do the good work of this world, 
let us remember our heritage and our 
obligation to put love at the center 
in all things.  And in this timely quote, 
from Channing The great hope of society 
is in individual character.  
May we remember his courage to live 
his truth and so may we. 

 

 

 

Stories of Pride 2025 - The Orange Juice Boycott of 1977

 

Stories of Pride 2025 - The Orange Juice Boycott of 1977 

By Beth Anz

 

 

 

Like our Florida Sunshine, sometimes it’s the stormy days 

that bring us the rainbows.  And for our inaugural Story of Pride, 

we are going to share a tale of Sunshine, Orange Juice, 

Milk and Rainbows.  We are of course talking about the 

Orange Juice Boycott of 1977, and how the LGBTQ 

movement found their political power over oppression.

Now as fabulous as it would be, we can not cover every 

aspect of the LGBTQ movement in the 60’s and 70’s here.  

We have all heard the story of the Stonewall Inn, 

which is widely seen as the birth of the Modern Gay 

Liberation Movement.  Notice we said modern, because 

gay, transgender, non binary and the larger 

spectrum of self expressions of love and identity 

have always been here and have been fighting 

for their rightful and equal place in society.  

But Stonewall was a catalyst for a modern 

movement of resistance.  

June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn was not the 

first time or place there was resistance, and it 

was not the first time the bar was raided.  

Those who did not conform to the gender 

or sexual stereotypes of the time were regularly 

arrested at the establishment and that night, 

some of the young and marginalized people 

in particular had enough.  Riots started that night, 

lasted for 6 days, and caught the attention of the nation. 

And the LGBTQ community, in an era of pro civil 

rights movements and anti war demonstrations 

tapped into the unrest of the 1960s and inspired 

the creation of organizations like GLAAD, PFLAG 

and the Human Rights Campaign.  One year later, 

June 28th, 1970 thousands of people marched in the 

streets of Manhattan from the Stonewall Inn to 

Central Park in what was then called 

“Christopher Street Liberation Day.”

What has come to be known as the 

first pride parade. 

Now fast forward to 1977, and how Christian 

crusader Anita Bryant helped spawn Florida's 

LGBTQ culture war. Bryant was a former 

Miss Oklahoma beauty queen and pop singer.  

She found fame in music and television at an early age, 

and travelled with the USO on Bob Hope’s Holiday tours.

But it wasn’t until she moved to South Florida that 

the trouble began. In 1969, Bryant became a 

spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission, 

and nationally televised commercials featured her 

singing "Come to the Florida Sunshine Tree" 

and stating the commercials' tagline: "

Breakfast without orange juice is like a day without sunshine."  

She was a household name at this point, 

voted most admired woman in America three 

years in a row by Good Housekeeping Magazine 

and was named one of the most 

influential women in America.

In the wake of the Stonewall Riots, several states 

started enacting legislation protecting the rights of 

LGBTQ people.  And in 1977, Dade County FL 

followed suit, and passed an ordinance prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  

Bryant led a movement to repeal the ordinance, 

forming the first national Anti-Gay group called 

“Save Our Children” (later named Protect America’s Children).  

She claimed that allowing gay people to be around 

children would lead to recruitment and child abuse.  

She was joined by mega church Pastor Jerry Falwell 

and others in spreading this hateful rhetoric,

amplifying a moral majority movement forming in the south.  

She expanded her crusade beyond Florida, 

and tried to repeal ordinances all over the country with her celebrity.    

But the LGBTQ community answered back by forming 

the Coalition for Human Rights and the Miami Victory 

Campaign, who organized a boycott of orange juice, 

hitting Anita Bryant in her corporate livelihood.  

Apple Juice was substituted for Orange Juice at bars.  

Merchandise like buttons, stickers and t-shirts were 

made to support the campaign, with slogans like 

"A day without human rights is like a day without sunshine".  

Sales and proceeds went to gay rights activists 

to help fund their fight against Bryant and her campaign.  

In October of 1977, Anita Bryant famously was one of 

the first celebrities to get “pied” by one of the LGBTQ activists 

on TV.  She joked “at least it’s a fruit pie”.  That moment 

helped to gain National Attention for the Orange Juice 

Boycott and several celebrities like Vincent Price, 

Jane Fonda and Johnny Carson joined the cause.  

Gay bars across the country were boycotting 

Orange Juice from the sunshine state.  

This was not the first time this tactic was used. 

In 1966 labor organizers boycotted California grapes 

and Coors beer in 1977 to protest unfair labor practices.  

But this was the first boycott (or as they called it “gaycott”) 

spearheaded by gay and lesbian activists.  

And “gaycott” they did.  Bars put out signs saying 

“TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS this establishment 

DOES NOT SERVE FLORIDA ORANGE JUICE”.  

And if you brought your own, they were known 

to pour it down the drain.  

In his April 14 column for the Bay Area Reporter, 

a weekly gay newspaper, Harvey Milk urged readers 

to switch to pineapple juice for breakfast. “Some say 

that ONE can of OJ won’t make any difference,” 

he wrote. “Before Bryant becomes more powerful, 

remember that your ONE can adds up to millions 

of ONE cans throughout the nation. 

The only way to stop this bigot is to have 

a fully effective economic boycott.”

The movement faced a strong smear campaign 

that produced a devastating ad, contrasting the 

wholesomeness of Miami’s annual Orange Bowl 

Parade with the debauchery of the San Francisco 

Pride march.   And with that smear campaign 

the ordinance for LGBTQ rights was repealed 

later that year, a setback that was not corrected 

until decades later, but this is not a story about 

a single battle, it is about a movement.

This was one of the first cases of LGBTQ organizations 

using their political power collectively towards a cause.  

And they inspired others, including Harvey Milk who

after the boycott ran for office and defiantly introduced 

San Francisco’s first gay rights ordinance in 1978 

as a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.  

He successfully defended against the “Briggs Initiative” 

protecting the rights of gay teachers and opposing

the movement spearheaded by Anita Bryant.   

The LGBTQ movement was learning their collective power, 

and Anita Bryant was learning it too. Bob Kunst, 

Bryant’s opponent on the ground in Miami, 

said the ordinance fight had galvanized world opinion. 

“She gave us every access to world media.”  

Bryant faced protest at every public appearance.  

At the end of 1978, in the same month Milk 

was assassinated, Bryant was fired as the Florida Citrus 

spokesperson.  After that she experienced bankruptcy 

and divorce, but never regretted her actions.  

Anita Bryant may be gone, but the fight continues.  

Much of the rhetoric used by her “Save Our Children” 

campaign has been reused and repackaged in the years since.  

Here in Florida, we see it in our state's 

Parental Rights in Education, better known as the 

“Don’t Say Gay” bill, which prohibits teaching about 

sexual orientation or gender identity, and this 

is just one example of many throughout the country. 

Whether they are like Anita Bryant, removing LGBTQ 

teachers from classrooms or now removing the 

conversation about LGBTQ people, 

the tactic is the same with the hateful lies about the 

community harming children and the fight continues. 

We affirm as Unitarian Universalists that LGBTQ people 

are sacred and beloved. In the words of our President  

Rev Sofía Betancourt for LGBTQ people, 

“Transgender and Nonbinary beloveds – my family and yours – 

are not only real, but sacred…each and all of us is 

in fact a vital part of the fabric of this nation, 

deeply beloved and deserving of protection, safety, and belonging.”  

May we always remember in our Florida Sunshine 

that on those rainy days of hate, it is up to us, 

the allies and members of the LGBTQ  community, 

to bring the rainbows.  To speak out and use our 

collective power against the powerful, because 

"A day without human rights is like a day without sunshine".