Let's see if this has any legs!

[snoseek]

It's going to go down in flames. Sorry, but snowboarders are not a "protected class".

This is sort of your thing so define "protected class". Is it a race thing?

 

[MadMadWorld]

Well, it is on public land, they sort of got a point. Whether they actually have a case or not is to be seen. How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks? Does that seem fair?

That would never fly. MRG might change there tune though after the miserable season they have had so far.

 

[snoseek]

That would never fly. MRG might change there tune though after the miserable season they have had so far.

Hypothetical of course and maybe a bad comparison. I was more challenging other posters idea of "entitlement". I don't see it as entitlement at all...its public land and everyone should have equal opportunities to use it...even as a customer. Entitlement=way overused these days.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Hypothetical of course and maybe a bad comparison. I was more challenging other posters idea of "entitlement". I don't see it as entitlement at all...its public land and everyone should have equal opportunities to use it...even as a customer. Entitlement=way overused these days.

Snowboarders could really screw over MRG if they all chipped in and bought the land that the 19th and 20th hole are on. That would infuriate everyone over there lol.

 

[snoseek]

Snowboarders could really screw over MRG if they all chipped in and bought the land that the 19th and 20th hole are on. That would infuriate everyone over there lol.

LOL, someone start one of those kickstarter thingy's. I'll kick in a few bucks and I don't snowboard, ever.

 

[MadMadWorld]

LOL, someone start one of those kickstarter thingy's. I'll kick in a few bucks and I don't snowboard, ever.

gofundme.com lol

 

[thetrailboss]

Well, it is on public land, they sort of got a point. Whether they actually have a case or not is to be seen. How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks? Does that seem fair?

That's different. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there cannot be discrimination on the basis of a choice of recreation; and, as said before, nobody is born a "snowboarder" or a "skier." By their logic, the forest service posting "no ATV" signs on portions of National Forest Land is unconstitutional.

I don't think we're going to see Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on either the Collins Chair or Jordanelle Gondola because she has a snowboard.

 

[snoseek]

That's different. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there cannot be discrimination on the basis of a choice of recreation; and, as said before, nobody is born a "snowboarder" or a "skier." By their logic, the forest service posting "no ATV" signs on portions of National Forest Land is unconstitutional.

I don't think we're going to see Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on either the Collins Chair or Jordanelle Gondola because she has a snowboard.

Well in that case you're right, no real case. Alta will continue to be douchy, even let in F'n snow bikes. I guess bottom line business is consistently good, they got a formula.

 

[thetrailboss]

Hypothetical of course and maybe a bad comparison. I was more challenging other posters idea of "entitlement". I don't see it as entitlement at all...its public land and everyone should have equal opportunities to use it...even as a customer. Entitlement=way overused these days.

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.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Well, it is on public land, they sort of got a point. Whether they actually have a case or not is to be seen.

No they dont have a point, and no they dont have a case.

It's a private entity, which, for the brief moment actually still means something in America. Just because someone runs a recreational ski business, doesnt mean they MUST allow snowboarding, or MUST allow snowbiking, or MUST allow tin can garbage-lid sledding.

How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks? Does that seem fair?

First of all, again, the business is private, not public.

Secondly, even if the area enacted some stupid law preventing residents of NY and NJ from attending, it would be no skin off my back. I certainly wouldn't whine about it and hire a team of lawyers, like the entitled, privileged, snotty, Fight-the-(invisible)-power, "I want it my way and I want it NOW" cowardly society that seems to be ever-growing today under the bogus guise of "fairness".

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

Utah tends to be one of the relatively sensible states, so hopefully it doesn't get that far and gets tossed quickly.

 

[Zand]

I love when people scream discrimination at these types of things. If you don't like it, all you simply have to do is change your boots and the type of plank under your feet. People choose to ski or snowboard. They don't choose to be white or black, male or female, etc. In the 1800s, if you were a black person that didn't want to be a slave, you couldn't just change your skin color. However, if you want to go to Alta or MRG, you have every ability to change what's under your feet. The people who complain that this is discrimination need to get a damn life.

 

[Madroch]

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....

 

[Madroch]

Assuming they can somehow satisfy the state action requirement- it I've seen liquor licenses issued to private golf clubs constitute state action so who knows.....

 

[Smellytele]

How would you feel if one of the more bad ass areas with killer snow in VT (on public land) said no, we don't want any NY/Jersey here....no thanks?

I would head there more often

 

[gostan]

Give me a break. I have no issue with Alta as is. If you do not want to go to Alta, take two planks instead of one. As a former lawyer who used to board, why not just leave it alone. Everything in life cannot and should not be solved by a lawsuit filed by some lawyer who has nothing else to do. Individuality is leaving all of us in this country far too quickly and is being substituted with complete and utter duplicative homogenous political correctness.

 

[Nick]

I find it hard to believe this will not get dropped. Bit who knows. Depends who hears the case I guess

Should a resort be able to introduce any kind of dress regulations ?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[MadMadWorld]

I find it hard to believe this will not get dropped. Bit who knows. Depends who hears the case I guess

Should a resort be able to introduce any kind of dress regulations ?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app

I think they would have an impossible time introducing dress regulation at a ski area. Not because of legal ramifications but consumer appeal. What would the point be? On a sub zero day some mountain is going to tell me what I can and can't wear?

 

[Nick]

I was trying to compare a dress policy with an equipment policy

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Euler]

I completely agree with Trailboss here. Operations on public land regularly, and appropriately restrict how the land may be used, what equipment my be used, what hours it may be used etc. While I would choose to allow riders along with skiers, I would never say that the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES requires it. What a waste of time and money.

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.

 

[Euler]

I love when people scream discrimination at these types of things. If you don't like it, all you simply have to do is change your boots and the type of plank under your feet. People choose to ski or snowboard. They don't choose to be white or black, male or female, etc. In the 1800s, if you were a black person that didn't want to be a slave, you couldn't just change your skin color. However, if you want to go to Alta or MRG, you have every ability to change what's under your feet. The people who complain that this is discrimination need to get a damn life.

What he said +1^^