Let's see if this has any legs!

[wa-loaf]

There are a lot of Traverses at Alta. I don't know why they really want to go there anyway ... if they got in they'd ride for a day and go back to Snowbird.

 

[Smellytele]

There are a lot of Traverses at Alta. I don't know why they really want to go there anyway ... if they got in they'd ride for a day and go back to Snowbird.

Kind of like the girls who got into the Citidel. They got in and within the first semester the left. It is the whole I don't really want to go but you can't keep me out.

 

[thetrailboss]

FWIW one of the Plaintiffs is the owner of Skullcandy and is bankrolling this effort.

And here is the actually Complaint: http://wasatchequality.org/sites/default/files/WE - Filed Complaint 1-15-14.pdf

It's clearly a publicity stunt.

 

[MadMadWorld]

FWIW one of the Plaintiffs is the owner of Skullcandy and is bankrolling this effort.

And here is the actually Complaint: http://wasatchequality.org/sites/default/files/WE - Filed Complaint 1-15-14.pdf

It's clearly a publicity stunt.

That make sense now. I'm sure it will be dropped.

 

[4aprice]

I would head there more often

I'm definitely coming up there with cones for your driveway:lol:

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[lerops]

It's public land leased to a private vendor. It's their call as to how much to charge folks to use it and what folks can do on the land. Snowboarding is an activity that they, the tenant, have chosen not to allow...along with sledding, snowmobiling, snow biking, snow fort building, curling, ice hockey, snow volleyball, tubing, etc. Are all those folks being discriminated against? No. Now if Alta was not selling lift tickets to black people, gays/lesbians, or Muslims then there would be a case.

In the end it will get tossed and Alta will have to spend money defending themselves leading to an increase in ticket rates.

Well said. I think people are making too big deal out of it. It is a business, and that's how they are defining their business. I wouldn't try to change the rules of a mountain that only let snowboarders in.

 

[Domeskier]

Well, an equal protection argument lacks the requisite protected class- what about other 14 th clause- substantive due process? Still don't think they get beyond rational basis review into any heightened standard... Does it regulate a fundamental right or impinge on a constitutionally protected right....
First amendment anyone? Doubtful but sure there are some interesting arguments to be made....

Perhaps Alta is using snowboarding as a proxy for sexual orientation!

 

[steamboat1]

Why is it Deer Valley never seems to be part of the conversation? They don't allow snowboarding either.

 

[C-Rex]

It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail. I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only. I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision. I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.

 

[MadMadWorld]

It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail. I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only. I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision. I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.

I think most people on here don't like the idea of the government telling companies how to run their business. I think the majority of people on here could care less if the mountain decided on their own to allow snowboarders.

 

[SnowRock]

I don' think it has any merit but why is it different than a dress code? What if you were only allowed to ride the lift at Alta if you were wearing Alta approved gear.. say Kjus, Bogner and Arcteryx? That still cool since its a private company with a lease on our lands?

 

[SnowRock]

I think most people on here don't like the idea of the government telling companies how to run their business. I think the majority of people on here could care less if the mountain decided on their own to allow snowboarders.

Isn't this a trade off you assume when your private business relies on public lands to be viable? Plenty of restrictions and rules already in place

 

[C-Rex]

I think most people on here don't like the idea of the government telling companies how to run their business. I think the majority of people on here could care less if the mountain decided on their own to allow snowboarders.

And I agree, the government definitely should not tell them how to run their businesses, but not allowing snowboarders is just a snobby, douche move meant to appeal to the stuck up assholes that don't want "riff-raff" on "their mountain". There's no sound reason for it. So F them and I hope they die in a fire. Sincerely, I hope it.

 

[4aprice]

It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail. I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only. I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision. I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.

I'm not anti snowboard so I don't want to get into a pissing match but I believe they did try to do that at Wolf Mountain (aka Canyons) a while ago. It might surprise you that I actually would have no problem with it. I don't feel entitled to ski wherever I want. Private businesses run they way they want to run. DV, Alta and MRG all seem to have found a market for their product. The market will determine if the bans stay in place or not.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[dlague]

And I agree, the government definitely should not tell them how to run their businesses, but not allowing snowboarders is just a snobby, douche move meant to appeal to the stuck up assholes that don't want "riff-raff" on "their mountain". There's no sound reason for it. So F them and I hope they die in a fire. Sincerely, I hope it.

I agree with what you are saying! I am a skier with kids who snowboard. We have not been to MRG because of that. At this day and age, I really do not think it is needed anymore! Good thing snowboarding did not get bigger than it already has the opposite might have happened! (probably not)

 

[thetrailboss]

Why is it Deer Valley never seems to be part of the conversation? They don't allow snowboarding either.

They own the land on which they operate. Same for MRG.

 

[thetrailboss]

It's funny reading all the posts from people who want it to fail. I wonder how you'd feel if some great mountains disallowed skiing and went snowboard only. I know it'll never happen. 1) Because snowboarders aren't exclusive dickheads like that and 2) It would be a horrible business decision. I just find it sad that people don't seem to mind discrimination as long as they aren't the victims.

I'm a bit surprised that there is no snowboarders only place.

 

[MadMadWorld]

And I agree, the government definitely should not tell them how to run their businesses, but not allowing snowboarders is just a snobby, douche move meant to appeal to the stuck up assholes that don't want "riff-raff" on "their mountain". There's no sound reason for it. So F them and I hope they die in a fire. Sincerely, I hope it.

Yea you are probably right. Funny thing is I see a lot more skier "riff-raff" these days than boarders.

 

[steamboat1]

They own the land on which they operate. Same for MRG.

Yes but MRG is always part of the conversation. DV isn't.

 

[ScottySkis]

As a business I don't understand how you turn away customers. But it their choice to make.