HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-25 Public Comment - J. Scott - Condemnation of the Bozeman City CommissionFrom:Jesse Scott
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission; Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:governor@mt.gov; contactdoj@mt.gov; kristin_dewaay@daines.senate.gov; Braxton.Mitchell@legmt.gov
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Condemnation of the Bozeman City Commission
Date:Friday, July 18, 2025 1:38:10 PM
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.
Bozeman City Commission,
I write to you with profound dismay and resolute condemnation of your recent decision, finalized
on July 15, 2025, to designate the pride flag as an official city flag of Bozeman by a 4-1 vote. This
action, taken in defiance of Montana’s House Bill 819 and the principles of civic neutrality,
represents a grievous misstep that undermines the unity, impartiality, and legal integrity of our
community. As a multi-generational Montanan whose conservative beliefs are representative of
this state and who will not stand on the sidelines watching our generational values and ideologies
be swept aside by an incapable group of invalids who occupy their time searching for a Nirvana
that will never be found, I find this decision not only divisive but also intellectually indefensible and
factually misguided, a glaring testament to the intellectual incapacity and entrenched leftist
mentality plaguing the majority of this commission. The Bozeman City Commission, along with
City Attorney Greg Sullivan, are utterly incapable of fulfilling the roles they occupy and do not
belong in public service. There are plenty of liberal non-profit groups out there where they can
continue to hold hands, sing kumbaya, and fantasize together about their make-believe utopian
society, leaving governance to those with the competence to prioritize the public good over
ideological crusades.
The adoption of the pride flag as an official city symbol is a direct affront to the spirit and letter of
House Bill 819, signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte on May 13, 2025, which explicitly
restricts the display of flags on government property to those of the United States, Montana, or
official municipal flags, among a few other exceptions. By elevating the pride flag—a symbol
inherently tied to a specific social and political movement—to the status of an official city flag, the
commission has deliberately circumvented this legislation. Bozeman City Attorney Greg Sullivan
himself noted that adopting the pride flag was the “most viable legal option” to restore its display,
acknowledging the legal constraints imposed by HB 819. This maneuver, while technically
permissible, flouts the law’s intent to preserve civic neutrality and prevent government
endorsement of ideological symbols. Such a calculated sidestep risks legal challenges, as noted
in the commission’s own agenda report, which warned of potential unplanned legal costs and
public scrutiny. That the majority—Mayor Terry Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Jennifer Madgic, and
Commissioners Emma Bode and Christopher Coburn—chose this path reveals a profoundintellectual deficiency, prioritizing partisan virtue signaling over sound legal reasoning and fiscal
responsibility. Moreover, City Attorney Sullivan’s suggestion exposes his own intellectual
incapacity, masquerading as legal acumen when it is nothing more than a feeble attempt to
appease ideological biases; his belief that this loophole constitutes a “viable” solution is a mockeryof true jurisprudence, reducing the noble practice of law to a partisan game of evasion that any
discerning mind would dismiss as the sophistry of an intellectually bankrupt advisor.
Intellectually, this decision fails to withstand scrutiny and exposes the utter stupidity of the
commission’s leftist-dominated leadership. A city flag is a civic emblem meant to encapsulate the
collective identity of all residents, irrespective of personal beliefs or affiliations. Bozeman’s existing
flag, adopted in 1966, achieves this through its neutral depiction of our shared geography andindustries—mountains for tourism, wheat for agriculture, and a book for education. In contrast, the
pride flag, while meaningful to some, is inextricably linked to a specific cultural and political
agenda rooted in progressive ideology. Its adoption as an official symbol alienates those who, like
myself, hold differing views, not out of animus but out of a commitment to a government that
remains impartial. Commissioner Douglas Fischer, the sole dissenting vote and apparent voice of
reason, rightly described this action as “driving a wedge” into the community, a sentiment echoed
by numerous residents during the July 15 meeting, where public comment was evenly split. To
claim, as some supporters did, that the pride flag represents “all citizens” is fundamentally wrong,
and anyone with common sense knows the specific groups who identify with this flag; as with
most leftist arguments—such as the notion that one sex can be the other—this only further
solidifies these types of people’s absolute disdain and hatred for logic and reason, a faculty
evidently stunted by the diminutive size of the left hemisphere of their brains where logic
processes reside. The majority’s insistence on this farce demonstrates an incapable grasp of
basic logic, blinded by a leftist mentality that equates forced symbolism with genuine inclusivity,
thereby proving their intellectual decrepitude.
Factually, the commission’s rationale—that this decision promotes inclusivity—is undermined by
the divisive process and outcome, further highlighting the stupidity and ideological bias at play.
The six-hour meeting on July 15, marked by heated debate and polarized testimony, revealed a
community fractured rather than united. Residents like Connor Culver articulated that elevating
the pride flag above other symbols suggests certain groups “deserve to be elevated above
everyone else,” a perception that fosters resentment rather than unity. The commission’s haste in
pushing this resolution, without first building broader consensus as Fischer advocated, ignored the
voices of nearly half the commenters who opposed the measure. Moreover, the precedent set by
this decision opens the door to future demands for other ideological flags—be they religious,
political, or otherwise—further eroding the neutrality of our civic symbols. If the pride flag can be
adopted, what is to stop a future commission from endorsing a flag tied to any other cause,
depending on the political whims of the moment? This shortsightedness is emblematic of the
leftist echo chamber in which the majority operates, where emotional pandering trumps rational
governance, rendering them utterly incapable of foreseeing the chaos they invite.
The commission’s claim that this action aligns with Bozeman’s values of diversity and inclusion
rings hollow when it prioritizes one group’s symbol over the collective whole, a classic hallmark of
leftist hypocrisy. True inclusivity would maintain the existing city flag, which has served as a
unifying emblem for nearly six decades, and focus on tangible actions to support all residents—such as those outlined in the 2023 “Belonging in Bozeman Equity and Inclusion Plan,” which
Fischer suggested as a more constructive focus. Instead, the commission has chosen a path that
invites division, legal risk, and a betrayal of the principle that government should represent all, not
some. The majority’s failure to comprehend this basic tenet of democracy underscores theirprofound stupidity and leftist indoctrination, which values performative activism over practical
stewardship.
Furthermore, in light of the explicit warnings from City Attorney Greg Sullivan regarding fiscal
penalties and unplanned legal costs stemming from anticipated challenges, and the statements
from Republican state Rep. Braxton Mitchell indicating that lawsuits against cities like Missoula for
similar adoptions are possible, with Butte potentially next, I eagerly anticipate the lawsuits that willinevitably be filed against Bozeman for this egregious violation. I pledge to assist in funding these
justified legal pursuits, to promote them ardently among fellow residents and across broader
networks, and I will celebrate unequivocally when the city and its intellectually decrepit leaders are
held accountable and financially broken by the consequences of their reckless ideologicaloverreach. I will be actively petitioning leaders within the state and federal governments to
withhold whatever public funding can possibly be withheld until the neurologically impaired city
officials are forced to resign and live the rest of their lives facing the reality of the failure that they
really are.
I am outraged that this decision, made under the guise of inclusivity, dismisses the concerns of
residents who value neutrality and tradition. I implore the commission to reconsider this reckless
action, rescind the pride flag’s official status, and restore the singular, unifying Bozeman city flag.
Failure to do so will only deepen the rift in our community and tarnish the commission’s legacy as
stewards of impartial governance, forever marking them as the epitome of leftist folly and
intellectual incompetence.
Sincerely,
Jesse Scott
Bozeman Resident and Multi-generational Montanan
Security Notice: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notifythe sender immediately, delete this message from your system, and do not disclose, copy, or distribute its contents. Any unauthorizeduse or dissemination is prohibited.