I'd rather say that it was Windows which made the CLI look bad. They made people think that CLI means old fashion technology. Amiga like OS X had a window system and CLI from the beginning and so users did not view CLIs as old fashion technology but rather as one of several alternatives.
My experience from the time was that it was mainly PC Windows users who talked down CLIs because they viewed DOS as a antiquated. In some ways it makes sense as the DOS CLI has been horrible for decades and MS never put any effort into making it nice.
I'd say OS X could be thanked for resurrecting the CLI. I still encounter Windows developers who almost don't know about the CLI and who never uses it. I don't think you find and OS X developers in the same position.
Macintosh didn't have a (built-in) command line for a long time, but it has supported scripting for a long time, starting with System 7 in 1993.
And prior to AppleScript, there were a few other CLIs on early Macs: Terminal programs like telnet, the CLI in MPW, and CLI / scripting in Applications like HyperCard and others IIRC.
And frankly i suspect that CLI gets a bad rep because MacOS never had a CLI to begin with (OSX got one via its unix internals, but i am unsure Apple knew to value it), and DOS was minimalist to put it mildly.
Sadly this has lead to unix UI devs to disparage the CLI when they should embrace it. That a X11 GUI tool is a wrapper around CLI tools is not a hindrance but a boon.
It means that if the CLI tool behaves correctly, the GUI tool will as well. And if the GUI tool behaves incorrectly, the user can try the same in the CLI to see where the problem originates.
It is really sad to see the push towards using dbus rather than CLI to communicate between GUI and daemon, as so much potential information is obscured in the protocol.