HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-25 Public Comment - C. Anders - City Flag of BozemanFrom:Chase Anders
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]City Flag of Bozeman
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 7:19:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
My name is Chase Anders, and I am a resident of 1543 Ryun Sun Way in Bozeman. I want to
emphasize that I do not care about anyone's sexual orientation or preferences. I believe that theflag should be inclusive of all Bozeman residents and represent our city as a whole.
At last week’s meeting, you received several comments from supporters of adopting the pride
flag. These comments can be grouped into five main categories, which are outlined belowalong with my responses.
1. “Displaying the ‘pride’ flag makes the LGBT community feel safe and
signals Bozeman as a safe place.”
Safety does not come from symbolic gestures. It comes from equal treatment
under the law and neutral governance. Elevating the “pride” flag as an official
city symbol sends the message that Bozeman is endorsing one political or
ideological viewpoint over others, alienating those who disagree and
undermining trust in public institutions. Some residents feel unsafe even
speaking out, fearing public shaming for holding different beliefs. True inclusion
isn’t achieved through ideological symbols; it’s achieved through neutral policies
that unite rather than divide.
2. “Visibility matters and not displaying the flag adds to painful isolation for
youth.”
The argument that the “pride” flag’s visibility is vital to prevent “painful and quiet
isolation” for LGBT youth is a guilt-driven emotional appeal, not a sound basis
for official city policy. In the July 8 meeting, Commissioner Bode said, “Too
often, the queer community is told that they are too much, that their presence at
family gatherings is too divisive, that they are welcomed, but only if they don't
make a scene and come as their full selves.” But it is not the local government’s
role to resolve family dynamics. Individuals are free to display the “pride” flag
and other symbols on private property and offer support through community
groups. The City of Bozeman employs an LGBT community liaison and has a
DEI plan that was shaped by LGBT input. Official adoption of the “pride” flag
politicizes public space and risks deepening division, not solving isolation.
3. “Flying the ‘pride’ flag shows moral clarity and courage, not an
endorsement of homosexuality, but a stand against oppressive
politicians.”
Framing the “pride” flag as a symbol of “moral clarity” or resistance to
“oppressive politicians” is self-congratulatory posturing, not responsible
governance. It dismisses neutrality as a weakness and labels dissent as bigotry.
But government symbols are not tools for protest; they are meant to unite all
residents. Adopting a political flag as an official city symbol turns City Hall into
an ideological battleground and pressures elected officials to signal loyalty to
one group rather than serve the whole community.
4. “Remaining neutral is siding with the oppressor.”
The claim that “neutrality is siding with the oppressor” is emotional blackmail.
Neutrality is not oppression. It is a constitutional obligation. City symbols must
represent everyone, not just the most politically organized group. When
government takes sides, it stops serving the full community. A neutral policy
protects all residents equally and preserves trust in public institutions. Labeling
neutrality as complicity is an attempt to silence dissent and enforce ideological
conformity. Emotional rhetoric is not a substitute for sound policy.
5. “Not adopting the flag derives from insecurity from conservative hate
groups.”
Claiming opposition stems from insecurity from conservative hate groups is a
baseless smear designed to silence critics rather than engage their arguments.
Opposition to the “pride” flag often comes from people across the political and
religious spectrum. Consider Hamtramck, Michigan, where a majority-Muslim
city council, hardly an ally of conservative politics or Christianity, banned all
ideological flags from city property, including the “pride” flag. Their decision
wasn’t driven by “right-wing ideology;” it reflected their discomfort with public
institutions being used for ideological messaging. The idea that only hateful or
insecure people oppose this proposal is not just false; it’s defamatory.
This is our opportunity to stand up for a principle that transcends identity politics: that
government must serve the whole, not a part. That official symbols must unify, not
divide. That our time and tax dollars are too important to be spent chasing ideological
statements. Let us focus our energy on the challenges that affect Bozeman families:
housing, infrastructure, public safety, and responsible growth, not culture war
distractions.
Thank you
Chase Anders