Let's see if this has any legs!

[lerops]

There is nothing inherent about snowboarders that make them a different group of people, therefore discrimination is clearly misused.

Also, there are multiple people on this thread who already said that they wouldn't mind a mountain for only snowboarders.

It is their business, and that's how they are defining their business. That's all there is to it.

 

[steamboat1]

Many Federal & State parks on Long Island are permitted for fishermen only. These are run by the government, not a private corporation. Many beaches on Long Island are permitted for town residents only.

 

[Domeskier]

Frankly, anyone having anything to do with filing this complaint should be publicly shamed. People often complain about frivolous lawsuits & the costs associated with tying up the courts. Taking one second of the court's time with this is the height of frivolity. They should be embarrassed & anyone who complains about frivolous lawsuits should be outraged.

Yeah, the court needs to sanction the attorneys for Skullcandy. In addition to having Skullcandy pay all of Alta's legal fees.

 

[Conrad]

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

Exactly. The choice between skiing and snowboarding is voluntary. Therefore, Alta is not discriminating against any people, they are just regulating how people can enjoy the slopes. I would assume that other entities with cross country ski trails and snowshoe trails would be allowed to regulate which trails are for cross country skiers and which trails are for snowshoes. Of course snowshoes can go on the cross country ski trails without too much problem, but it naturally leads to less enjoyment for the both groups. The same goes for skiers or snowboarders.

By the way, I would be totally okay if a snowboard area opened that didn't allow skiers. It actually would probably be a good business plan...they could bill it as a destination resort and the "first snowboarders only mountain in the country!"

 

[jack97]

I don't really see the validity of the "National Forest" argument.

Definitely agree.

I believe the snowboard ban is archaic, these places should loosen up and get with the times. But I also believe that the private group running Alta has the right to allow the ban. It still irks me how self centered some those Alta skiers are in the vid.

 

[AdironRider]

Funny how people have no problem with discrimination when its not against something they do. Speaks a lot about the person.

The protected class argument, while legal, is still ethically wrong.

Why? Because its still discrimination.

The only instance where protected classes deals with needs is housing and food purchases. Those are true needs.

Rosa Parks? Sure she didn't have a choice on her skin color, but she did have a choice about getting on a bus to transport her somewhere. She could have walked, or bought her own car.

Theres been a lot of LGBT situations with legal precedent with wedding cakes. Another want. Not a need. In Colorado a bakery (private establishment) must sell a want to homosexuals. How is this really any different when not talking about the basic necessities of life.

So for everyone using the make a different choice, thanks for letting us know you support discrimination, it doesn't change ethically just because its a private business.

Legal does not necessarily mean right.

 

[farlep99]

So for everyone using the make a different choice, thanks for letting us know you support discrimination, it doesn't change ethically just because its a private business.

Legal does not necessarily mean right.

This is a load of horseshit. "Discrimination," as the word is used today, refers to people, not activities. That is, people are discriminated against, not things. Skis & snowboards are things. Not allowing snowboards is not discrimination. Not allowing females on snowboards (but allowing males) = discrimination.

I'd love to take my snowmobile & ride all around ski areas. But none will let me. I think us slednecks should band together & file suit!!

 

[AdironRider]

This is a load of horseshit. "Discrimination," as the word is used today, refers to people, not activities. That is, people are discriminated against, not things. Skis & snowboards are things. Not allowing snowboards is not discrimination. Not allowing females on snowboards (but allowing males) = discrimination.

I'd love to take my snowmobile & ride all around ski areas. But none will let me. I think us slednecks should band together & file suit!!

Ok, but this isn't a black and white argument, are you saying its really conceptually different?

Whether discriminating against a female or not allowing a piece of equipment, you are still refusing service because you think you are better than them, the race, activity, or service is moot.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Comparing Rosa Parks to the plight of snowboarders? That's one I haven't heard yet.

 

[Hawkshot99]

I support the ending of the bans on boards. However I support the right of a buissness to opperate the way that they see fit more.
I 100% would be ok with a mtn having a board only policy. I wouldnt go there as I ski, but support their choice to operate how they want.


Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

 

[farlep99]

Ok, but this isn't a black and white argument, are you saying its really conceptually different?

Whether discriminating against a female or not allowing a piece of equipment, you are still refusing service because you think you are better than them, the race, activity, or service is moot.

What's with the "you think you are better than them" thing. Is that why Alta doesn't allow snowboards? If that's the reason than I'd agree with you, but I think they've just made a decision to make it skiers only. Maybe because it's 'old-school' or whatever. I don't know why they do it. But it's not discrimination. Unless we want to agree that every ski resort 'discriminates' against sledders, slednecks, snowshoers, etc.

 

[AdironRider]

Comparing Rosa Parks to the plight of snowboarders? That's one I haven't heard yet.

Since you clearly missed my point, Its not comparing rosa parks to snowboarders or anything. In fact my point is the exact opposite.

Its not the issue of race, gay rights, or snowboarding, its the notion that's its cool to exclude someone from a want just because you don't like them. Riding a bus is no more of a need than riding a ski lift. They are both ultimately luxuries and not needed.

So take the situation out of a specific context. Are you ok with exclusion and why? I just find it interesting how people convince themselves its ok in one instance, and not in another in non-life or death scenarios.

 

[AdironRider]

What's with the "you think you are better than them" thing. Is that why Alta doesn't allow snowboards? If that's the reason than I'd agree with you, but I think they've just made a decision to make it skiers only. Maybe because it's 'old-school' or whatever. I don't know why they do it. But it's not discrimination. Unless we want to agree that every ski resort 'discriminates' against sledders, slednecks, snowshoers, etc.

Uhhh that's pretty clearly the reasoning in this specific scenario with Alta.

Noone actively turns paying customers away just cause.

 

[BenedictGomez]

From Wikipedia:
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."

In this case they are prejudicially treating people based on them being snowboarders by banning them. Or you could say that they are prejudicially treating snowboards based on some belief by banning them. Still not seeing where I went wrong there, Charlie Brown.

Yes, I know.

Should all female gyms be banned?

OMG, they're "discriminating" against men!*


*For those too lazy to read an entire thread, this is sarcasm

 

[BenedictGomez]

As mentioned earlier this is a publicity stunt. Not so much for the Skullcandy brand or anything, but by filing the suit they drew attention to the issue. I think that's as far as they'll get.

Frankly, anyone having anything to do with filing this complaint should be publicly shamed. People often complain about frivolous lawsuits & the costs associated with tying up the courts. Taking one second of the court's time with this is the height of frivolity. They should be embarrassed & anyone who complains about frivolous lawsuits should be outraged.

Edited to add: F*ck Skullcandy.

This.

But Skullcandy is making the calculated decision that the intended audience is too young and stupid to comprehend the full complexity of the situation. And sadly, I'm sure they're probably correct.

Theres been a lot of LGBT situations with legal precedent with wedding cakes. Another want. Not a need. In Colorado a bakery (private establishment) must sell a want to homosexuals. How is this really any different when not talking about the basic necessities of life.

It's different because a moronic liberal judge made an activist political decision rather than a legal decision, which shredded both state's rights and the right's of private entities.

The bakery owner was NOT discriminating against gays, he was stating that since his religion disagrees with gay marriage, that he shouldnt be forced by government to play a role in that gay marriage. And I couldnt agree with him more. The baker was the one who's rights were infringed upon, not the gay couple who could have received same services from 1003 other bakeries.

Comparing Rosa Parks to the plight of snowboarders? That's one I haven't heard yet.

I loffed!

 

[AdironRider]

This.

But Skullcandy is making the calculated decision that the intended audience is too young and stupid to comprehend the full complexity of the situation. And sadly, I'm sure they're probably correct.



It's different because a moronic liberal judge made an activist political decision rather than a legal decision, which shredded both state's rights and the right's of private entities.

So your personal beliefs and political persuasion set the bar?

So Benedict, why is it ok to exclude someone in one scenario and not in another. Again, the activity or service doesn't matter, but what benefit does it give?

 

[MadMadWorld]

Since you clearly missed my point, Its not comparing rosa parks to snowboarders or anything. In fact my point is the exact opposite.

Its not the issue of race, gay rights, or snowboarding, its the notion that's its cool to exclude someone from a want just because you don't like them. Riding a bus is no more of a need than riding a ski lift. They are both ultimately luxuries and not needed.

So take the situation out of a specific context. Are you ok with exclusion and why? I just find it interesting how people convince themselves its ok in one instance, and not in another in non-life or death scenarios.

It's not like Rosa Parks could bleach her skin and all of a sudden sit at the front of the bus! If you really wanted to experience any of those resorts all you have to do is throw on a pair of skis! Rosa Parks was held up as a symbol of the struggle of the Civil Rights movement but in reality there were a hell of a lot worse things going on.

 

[AdironRider]

So again, taking situational context out of things, you are ok with excluding someone just because you want to?

Rosa Parks is just a convenient example. It wasn't life or death, she didn't need to ride, hell she could still get where she wanted to go.

Yet that example of exclusion is terrible, but physically not even letting someone use a service, that again is just a luxury, is ok.

Both scenarios fall under the choice argument you brought up. Im just asking why you think that way.

 

[BenedictGomez]

So your personal beliefs and political persuasion set the bar?

That's exactly what you're doing when you elevate "cake baking" to a higher status than religious freedom.

You cant alter your religions beliefs, but that couple could have bought a friggin' cake from 1000 other places. Again, liberal judge made an activist political decision rather than a legal decision and shredded the Constitution, as they are want to frequently do.

So Benedict, why is it ok to exclude someone in one scenario and not in another. Again, the activity or service doesn't matter, but what benefit does it give?

In certain situations the private entity may believe that the creation of a niche leads to success. I think that's pretty obvious. For instance, as was stated recently in another thread, were it not for the old school niche that MRG has created, it would have gone-under years ago.

 

[AdironRider]

I never elevated cake baking, just an example of hypocrisy.

Everyone uses that argument, but Alta really isn't old school with high speed lifts etc compared to MRG. I think they would also need to prove it hurts their business first (which they cant and it wont).