The Gallatin County Republicans has caused quite a stir with an invitation to their annual fundraiser dinner. You may have already seen it circling online. If not, we’ve included it below. We think this invitation pretty much speaks for itself.
Read the Democratic Party’s response here: https://www.montanademocrats.org/news/mtgop-calls-hundreds-of-thousands-of-montanans-peasant-families
By: James C. Nelson, Montana Supreme Court Justice (Ret).
On February 8th Senator (and lawyer) Steve Fitzpatrick (R-SD 10) published a guest view in the Independent Record chastising the Montana Supreme Court for a “stunning” decision. The Senator’s litany of complaints included that the Court violated the separation of powers, “eviscerated the Legislature’s power to make rules and manage its own affairs” . . . “granted itself the power to punish the Legislature,” invaded the province of the legislature to interpret its own rules, accused the Legislature of bad faith, and [took]the legislature to task for violating its norms, all the while ignoring its own norms and precedents.
The Senator identified neither the case nor what the Court’s decision was actually about. The name of the case is Forward Montana v. State by and through Gianforte, 2024 MT 19. The Court’s decision is well-written and easy to follow; read it at: FORWARD MONTANA v. STATE BY AND THROUGH GIANFORTE (2024) | FindLaw Forward Montana and other plaintiffs are referred to as Appellants.
The case.
During the 2021 session, the Legislature considered SB 319, which dealt with the regulation of joint political fundraising committees. Like most, the bill went back and forth between the Senate and the House and was amended. A free conference committee, appointed to consider amendments, apparently did not. However, two days before the Legislature adjourned, this committee added four new sections to the bill during a 17-minute meeting, closed to the public. Several of these amendments were almost verbatim from a bill that failed to pass during the session. The bill, so amended, passed both houses in the last 24 hours of the session.
Appellants challenged two of the amendments for violating Montana’s Constitution, Article V, sections 11(1) and (3). In pertinent part, these require: (1) [a] law shall be passed by bill which shall not be so altered or amended on its passage through the legislature as to change its original purpose, and (3) [e]ach bill, except 2 general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall contain only one subject, clearly expressed in its title.
After various proceedings and hearings, the District Court concluded that the amended bill violated both of the foregoing constitutional mandates. The State, represented by the Attorney General, chose not to appeal—resulting in the trial court’s decision becoming the law of that case.
Appellants moved for attorney fees under the “private attorney general doctrine,” and § 25-10-711, MCA–exceptions to the “American Rule” under which litigants generally bear their own fees. The District Court denied the fee request. Appellants appealed that denial. The Supreme Court reversed and applied the doctrine.
The decision.
In reversing the District Court’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded, among other things, that: Appellants were entitled to attorney fees because “[they] alone [vindicated] important constitutional interests. The Legislature disregarded its constitutional limitations, and the Attorney General offered no substantive or constitutional interests in defense of these actions;” because “[t]he Legislature must follow certain rules in enacting legislation to ensure transparency and public participation;” and “because of the process through which the unconstitutional sections of this Bill came to be: an obviously unlawful Bill adopted through willful disregard of constitutional obligations and legislative rules and norms.”
Thus, this case had nothing to do with the parade of horribles described by Senator Fitzpatrick. Rather, this case involved the issue of attorney fees awarded to a litigant pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine.
More to the point, this case involved a challenge to unconstitutional legislation rammed through at the end of the session and the Legislature sucker- punching the public’s Constitutional right to know.
Ironically, Senator Fitzpatrick demonized the Court for doing its job—i.e. holding the Legislature and Executive accountable for not doing theirs.
“If you are a God fearing, truth loving person, do not patronize this place.” Beware, dear reader. The Queers are out to get you caffeinated. The cat’s out of the bag. Shortly after stealing the rainbow from God, the LGBTQ+ community moved on to the next logical step, creating safe spaces in the form of coffee shops. We want to supply you with that extra pep in your step you need to sin.
Lucky for all the God fearing, truth loving people out there, Luna Coffee has finally gotten their comeuppance. One man is on a mission to protect the people of Great Falls from the gay agenda (iced coffee and board games) and he is sending a LOT of emails. He’s also calling, leaving messages, and review-bombing Luna on google and yelp. This dude REALLY hates gay people, and he definitely doesn’t want to drink their coffee.
A few favorites from his correspondence include his assertion that, “I have heard this establishment is “lgbtq” owned. 2024 is going to be different for you.” Why is “lgbtq” in quotation marks? Are you implying we aren’t real, like Santa Claus and the trickle-down economy? Honestly making me feel ethereal, and I like it.
Later, he writes, “Do NOT ENDORSE sexual perversion and degeneracy in the public square!” What I like here is the phrase “in the public square!” Feels like a real throw back. This man wants to put someone in the stocks and he is not afraid to show it.
In his One-Star review written under the name “Mr Sonoranbird” he asks, “What side of the conflict of this insidious ideology will you be on?” Fair question. As a bisexual, I refuse to choose sides.
I can confirm that Luna Coffee is indeed an LGBTQ+ owned business. (I am sharing this with permission, which should always be the practice!) Last time I checked, they had an extensive tea and coffee menu, but no visible Gay Agenda anywhere. Rather, Luna is a local business that contributes significantly to our community, both as an employer and as an accessible community space.
It’s easy to dismiss people like “Mr Sonoranbird” as stupid. Often well-meaning folks suggest that the recipients of discrimination should shake it off, not let it affect them, don’t even respond. But that’s not how it works. It doesn’t stop discrimination, and it doesn’t acknowledge the very real effect these kinds of messages have on people. The truth is, messages like this often escalate into real world danger. Along the way, they make people feel unsafe and unwanted. One-star reviews can indeed drive down business, and could ultimately result in jobs lost.
Community means protecting one another from shit like this. So let’s not dismiss this. Instead, let’s show Luna Coffee some support. Here’s what I’m asking. Over the coming weeks, make an effort to stop by Luna Coffee. Try something new on the menu. Snap a selfie, send it to us, and we’ll compile them to share in an update. Leave Luna a good review. Help us further the gay agenda of creating a community that stands up for one another.
