sad part is Liberal,Osama ' Judges ' may rule f the Gay boarders ,if ' they' wanna Fuckin' Marry each other at Alta!
Printable View
sad part is Liberal,Osama ' Judges ' may rule f the Gay boarders ,if ' they' wanna Fuckin' Marry each other at Alta!
Eh, no. Court hasn't ruled yet. You were quoting the Forest Service's brief, in support of its motion to dismiss.Quote:
Originally Posted by whyturn
^ it is normal and typical for a defendant to defend their interests when being sued.
Alta's ban on snowboarding - rationale:
"These differences create safety concerns that can be avoided or minimized by not allowing snowboarders," Forest Service lawyers wrote in the new filing.
evidence:
<<INSERT EVIDENCE HERE>>
What will Alta and the USFS say when the judge asks for data to support their policy? All the supporting evidence I've seen is anecdotal turds similar to what you see here http://unofficialnetworks.com/shit-a...s-feel-107837/. The data publicly available suggest Alta's reasoning is factually inaccurate and if anything increases the risk its skiers face.
Maybe the more important question is - if snowboarders pose such a hazard to skiers, why does nearly every other resort in the world not protect its skiers similarly? Is Alta irrational, or effectively the rest of the world's ski operators?
the safety thing is bull shit - alta not allowing boarders is not - lol
I think it's stupid Alta doesnt allow borders but dont care enough about the issue to pick up a pitchfork over it. Having said that, the "there's so many traverses!" logic is kinda stupid, because people who are good at snowboarding will get out to High Boy without issue while people who are not good will have a rough time. And that is exactly the same as what already happens with skiers now: people who are not good at skiing clog up the works and everyone else dodges around them while trying to carry their speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by baron
The amount of wasted $ and breath to drum up drama over how snowboarders are a protected class, plus the nazi stickers, klansman stickers, ect... god, I hope I never have to share a chairlift with those hyperbole-prone blowhard fun-sponges. Can Alta lift the ban on snowboarding and replace it with a ban on douchebags?
I would like to see some splitboarders at alta telemarking their splits all day while wearing dicksuits or something like that..
Unfortunately, douchebags are a protected class in Utah. And at most "world class" ski areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale
Put down the bottle of Testors and open a window.Quote:
Originally Posted by baron
If it goes to trial, healthy is not 100USD. But I will take your money, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by My Pet Powder Goat
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale
I used to agree with you 100%. With no one in my way I could make it out to most of the traverses. Most, not all. There's lot's of up hill out there. As for the ones a good boarder could make it to, one gaper clogging up the works would have them un buckling whereas a skier can just pole along. Most snowboarders would realize the hassle isn't worth it and that everything that doesn't require a traverse is nothing special. They would then head back to snowbird.
None of this is justification for keeping them off the hill but the reality is it really would suck for snowboarders. I think they just want to go there for the hype but don't realize what it's really like. Now that I'm on skis again and have gone back and spent some time there skiing the good stuff I have changed my tune. I'd still like to ride Alta but I highly doubt it'd be in my top 20 favorite places to ride a board.
What does piss me off though it their reasoning for not allowing snowboarders is safety. That's a load of shit. I wish they would just say that it's because they cater to a group of people who either unjustifiably hate snowboarders or who want to ski the mountain and don't really give a shit if they allow boarders. End of the day these two groups do a fine job of filling the parking lot. Their clientele doesn't give two shits about snowboarders so why should they? That reasoning is fine with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlunt
I'm in.
Terms:
If the court ruling goes to the snowboarders and the ban is overturned I'll pay you $100
If the court dismisses the case (because it was retarded to begin with) or the case goes to trial and the ban is upheld than I win the bet.
(I'd be willing to double, or triple the bet if you wish, but this keeps it fun...)
agreed?
....I can't wait for you to try and weasel your way out of this one...
Why: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Alta isn't irrational, just their rational interests are either/both:
a) some $$$ in being one of few no boarders areas (if it became the norm the premium likely goes away)
B) their interest isn't straight $, but some history, tradition, joy from angering people, etc.
Snowboarding would be awesome for Alta. Fuck, the most attitude I have ever seen from any snow slider has been from some of those lodge kids at Alta but who can blame them, those poor kids have such a lack of pussy up there that they probably don't even know how
to navigate a vagina well enough to find the fucking clitoris!
Eventually the clientele and the discriminational attitudes connected with them will die and then Alta will open to snowboarding.
All I know is that I love snowboarding, I remember back in the 90's before we were all on fat skis I envied snowboarders ability to carve smooth big turns down powder faces. I tried my hardest to emulate that style while skiing on 215 dh boards with lp tips. I was so influenced by snowboarding in creating my style of skiing that the thought of hating snowboarding is completely ridiculous. I actually find myself when riding in places like Snowbird, Jackson, and Telluride often being the only skier in the group.
Kids are kids and they tend to act like little D-bags no matter what tool they are on for sliding on snow, get over it. I fucking love snowboarding even though I don't ever actually do it.
Serious, somewhat off-topic question: Why do ski and snowboard media outlets insist on being segregated?
TGR used to have some Jeremy Jones clips in their otherwise ski-centric films, but that's an exception. Most snow porn films are either snowboarding or skiing, with little overlap. Powder Magazine ("The Skiers Magazine") never runs any snowboard content. Transworld Snowboarding never runs any ski content. Ditto for SKI, SKIING, SBC Skiing, SBC Snowboarder, etc. Backcountry Magazine used to do some splitboard stuff, but now that's mostly been pushed over to Kronicle Magazine. As a ski bum who's been making a living slinging ski/snowboard photos, it's impossible to get an assignment for a pitch that involves a mix of skiers and splitboarders.
Seems like there must be some market research that's shown skiers are only interested in reading/watching/seeing other skiers and the same is true for snowboarders?
If it goes to trial and we lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by My Pet Powder Goat
If it gets dismissed, it will be resubmitted and a new judge will call it I imagine.
My 100 is not hinging on some douchbag blue hair not in trial.
its not hate.Its logistics...skiers dont want to wait,while boarders fallin off the chairlif exit,slow the chair to a halt.skiers dot like traversing near such unpredictable random turns.there is no pattern to predict where a unskilled boarder will be .I never remember seein skiers squatting middle trail either..get ready for a good spray one planks ;)educate young ignorant boarders and the sporters will be welcomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baron
No skiers ever fall or clog up the traverse…..right.:rolleyes2
^^^actually i said the chairlifts;I skied Vermont a shitload,NY,NJ,penn,every 5 min a Boarder falls at the exit,smtimes they crawl away and dont stop the lift at least.Dosen't seem a big prob at the Bird 'education for boarders' maybee? I see less collisions where basic ski rules are posted on the lift poles as u pass them.How many ignore the r of way in Utah is bad.
huh? find the what now?Quote:
Originally Posted by RaisingArizona
Probably not the place for this, but I wholeheartedly agree. My favorite films incorporate both boards and skis (and even tele, oh my!). I think it just reinforces the "I'm a special snowflake" syndrome in people when it only focuses on one thing. But eh, whatever. You people are still fucking off about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale
I'll take a wager as well on Goat's terms.
there is a difference in the way beginner boarders 'scrape' the powder off the surface of the runs.Hop and scrape,and scrape,scrape,hop.... ,dosent help the fresh powder ...as opposed to clean turns on a board or skis .maybee alot of boarders push it to slopes they should not be riding yet.I see skier approaching this ability jump,w more self honesty .Slip -slidin down a sik run, dosent make you anything but lucky;)
You are a poster child Altard. Scraping the snow.....get a grip.Quote:
Originally Posted by baron
Just fucking move. Utah is a fascist police state, and SLC is crowded.
Nobody cares that you can't snowboard Alta.
Not sure if it is for nazis or not but it sure does seem to have an overabundance of folks that would be the correct age.
He's kinda right. I've seen way more people side slipping down a hill on thier heel edge than I've seen skiers side slipping down. I think it's just that snowboarders feel more comfortable getitng in over thier head than skiers do. Still a lame excuse though as those that do it not only make up an insignificant percentage of boarders but they also consume an insignificant amount of that precious pow. That and if you're skiing where beginer boarders can access then you just need to step up your game and quit bitching.Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlunt
http://vimeo.com/73182355Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale
Edit: I'm a fan of BC snowboarding stuff as seen in Deeper, Further, various Sweetgrass films, and various Powderwhore films. But then, I'm a (mostly) ex-snowboarder. Flippy spinny shit was appealing to me 10 years ago. Not so much now. But that's for either sliding method. I don't think it matters though. My friends who're into BC stuff but have never snowboarded still enjoy BC snowboarding/snowboard mountaineering stuff, as in Further. I also liked Backcountry's coverage of splitboarding, although I haven't had a subscription in forever.
Maybe there a place in the market for a Snowsliding Monthly.
http://www.powdermag.com/stories/end-snow-separatism/
This article is a piece of shit. The author beats down legitimate efforts by the snowboarding community to instill some fairness in upper LCC while prescribing that a bunch of pussy-footed platitudes, if repeated enough, are the way to secure snow equality for boarders.
Why does the skiing crowd continually conflate the equal protection argument put forth in the lawsuit and misguided Rosa Parks-protected class arguments? They're not the same and I haven't seen anyone equate the harm of racial injustice with Alta's ban. But plenty of ski folks carry on shaming boarders for doing just that.
An interesting point in this discussion is how the ambivalence and condescension from skiers parallels that of bigots. Note that is a comparison of the disposition of a non-affected party, NOT OF THE HARM THAT POLICY CREATES. This is an important distinction to make, because failing to do so results in an inaccurate view of the issue. People simply don't do much digging when they're not on the side affected, it's human nature. But it doesn't legitimize reiterating time and time again these poorly researched and inaccurate portrayals of "the opposition".
An issue's relative importance should bear little to no weight on the conclusion one reaches when reviewing matters of equality, only on the timeliness or urgency people attach to prospective change. In this case I haven't seen any snowboarders talk about deadlines- we simply want the ban lifted.
Another point, nobody's going to look out for yours if you don't. Skiers here make a great case study on why it is so important to be vocal, even on trivial local issues like Alta's downhill/uphill policies. Even today influential pros like Gnarwhale alternate between being passive and loathing the fact the issue is even being discussed. That is discouraging and only foments discontent.
And for the record, MRG & DV can do whatever they please. They're on private land Derek. There is no argument to be had aside from whining. Well, except that cute little saying you've been hiding in your wallet since '98.
the only Nazis are the ones that want to attack the peace and tranquility of this most Zen like paradise, Alta.
those that wish to take over and Dictate like Nazi Pigs only strengthens the belief that the unenlighten should never be allowed to take over and destroy the harmony of this sacred Ski Resort.
for you awesome and accomplished Boarders you have options. so be thankful for what you have and not hateful for what you don't have
the Dalai Lama understands
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/...dalai_lama.jpg
http://quotes.memorymuseum.net/dalai...a-quotes-4.jpg
I guess it's time to life suit against the NFS for not allowing dogs in LCC. Dogs should have the same rights (equal protection) as moose, Rocky Mountain goats and other wildlife, including me that often takes a whizz up Canyon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Are you serious? I think you may be the one confused about how the pro-snowboard warriors have positioned the argument. Looks at the title of this thread. It's copied from the snowboard at alta campaign. You can buy Swastika Alta stickers and shirts or joint the facebook page. Levitation project made stickers and prints of Alta-snowflake-wearing KKK Klansmen lynching a snowboarder. They used to have a youtube video that interspersed alta skiers with footage of concentration camps and genocide. I just looked for it but youtube took it down because of a copyright violation complaint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
http://i.imgur.com/CBkIT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/q7hkUhj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/oS6tqh5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0VqgHgk.jpg
This is how the debate has been framed for the past 5 years. And I get it. A campaign that says "If you're not with us, you're racist!" gets eyeballs on the internet and draws heated reactions from skiers in the Alta parking lot. The problem is, I think those tactics are deceitful and cheap because this issue is not analogous to Nazi genocide nor the Civil Rights Movement.
But the current lawsuit is working that same angle:The 14th Amendment is written so that laws apply equally to all people. But Alta does not discriminate against Age, Gender, Race or the other protected classes. Anyone can buy a ticket there, you just cant use your ticket if you choose to use a snowboard, or a toboggan, or a snow bike. You could go there tomorrow if you're willing to ride skis. So the question comes down to: Are snowboarders a protected class? I'm no law expert, but my gut says No, snowboarders are not a protected class.Quote:
“Because of Alta’s relationship with the government, Alta’s actions must comply with the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause,” says attorney Jonathan Schofield in the press release. “Alta’s prohibition against snowboarders excludes a particular class of individuals from use and enjoyment of public land based on irrational discrimination against snowboarders, which denies them equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
I think Alta should allow snowboarding. I think it's probably totally legal for Alta to be ski-only. I dont think the KKK/Nazi stuff will help sway minds and hearts. I have shared my view with Alta's marketing team, but I'm not really an Alta regular nor long-time customer so I dont think I'm as influential as you think.
Are you kidding? That shit's great for showcasing them as whiny entitled cunts. More please. And can we get more blogging and articles on this? Nothing's more awesome than manufactured bullshit from the "stoke" industry.
Regurgitating old material from abandoned campaigns subtracts from today's discussion. So does mischaracterizing the current litigation as you have done... yet... again....
I am in Colorado, I am just here for the Lulz...Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale
It just happens that the animus part of the law falls under the 14th Amendment…the media and douchebag skiers have raised the racism issues….not the snowboarders..
http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protecti...d-classes.html
Protected Classes
- Equal protection does not require government to treat all people exactly the same; laws can draw legitimate distinctions between different groups of people
- Basic review (Lindsley test): Are classifications in the law reasonable and not arbitrary?
- Intermediate review applied to classifications such as gender: Are classifications in the law "substantially related to the achievement" of "important government objectives"?
- Heightened review applied to "suspect" classifications such as race: Classifications in the law are usually inappropriate
Just as the federal government can only ensure under the Fourteenth Amendment that the states, their employees, and their agents treat people equally, the federal government can only extend its most rigorous protection to some people. In a limited sense, the equal protection clause protects all people. (Remember, the Fourteenth Amendment uses the phrase "any person.") But in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment the courts have kept in mind the context and specific objectives surrounding its ratification. Proposed shortly after the Civil War, the amendment was prompted by northern recognition that southern states were reducing the recently freed slaves to second-class citizens. Freedmen were shut out of the political process and reduced to a slavery-like status by local vagrancy laws. To redress these injustices, the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed to ensure that the rights of freedmen were protected.
Protecting the freedmen from southern violations was clearly the intent, but when drafting the amendment members of Congress employed more inclusive language. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to convey a somewhat two-tiered governmental responsibility. Since the amendment refers to "any person" and not just freedmen, the courts have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to offer fundamental protection to all persons. [bromontana] this is what applies to snowboarders But recalling the more specific objectives surrounding the amendment's ratification, the courts have held that the laws impacting the rights of certain persons must be scrutinized more closely. [bromontana] this is what you keep saying the snowboarders' lawyers are saying. They're not. Please stop using this rhetoric to micharacterize the suit
[...] Equal protection does not mean that everyone must be treated exactly the same. A twelve-year old need not be provided the same right to drink alcohol granted to an adult; a sixty-year old does not have the same right to a public education possessed by a child. The basic question asked by the courts in evaluating state actions like these is whether the different treatment imposed by the law is reasonable. Known as the Lindsley test, the question asked is whether the classifications drawn are reasonable and not arbitrary.
[bromontana] below is not applicable
But when the courts consider questions of unequal treatment involving certain categories of persons, they apply a more rigorous examination of the law in question. The Lindsley test's "restrained review" of a particular government action is replaced by a heightened or "active review" of the laws and their effects upon specific populations. For example, consistent with the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, all laws incorporating racial classifications are subject to "strict scrutiny." Race is considered a "suspect" class which means that any law employing racial classifications are considered suspicious by the courts.
This line of reasoning matches that in the complaint. Excerpt of the latter:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oplPAySNpD.../s1600/ddd.jpg
http://wasatchequality.org/sites/def...%201-15-14.pdf
The truth is Alta's ban is based on animus and the suit has nothing to do with protected classes.
Is every boarder a God damn Lugan ?
give it up already
long winded quotes and explanations will never change that no ones wants you there for all the right reasons
FIFY.................Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Satch
So 2011/12, I know. Just pointing out that the Pro-Snowboard crowd has done a lot to "equate the harm of racial injustice with Alta's ban." Not sure how that "regurgitation" subtracts from the discussion. It was the LP and "Alta is for Racists" campaigns that organized the base for what is now Wasatch Equality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
And I'm not a lawyer and dont claim to have a deep understanding of the suit nor of the 14th, but that brief sure does sound like it's arguing for equal protection of a class:
Quote:
The Equal Protection Clause is applicable to the federal government through the
Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Alta grants skiers access to its chairlifts and terrain but bans snowboarders from
both. By creating a classification of people to disadvantage (snowboarders) and explicitly
exclude from accessing, using, and enjoying public land, while granting access to all other
similar groups (skiers), Alta (and by extension the federal government) discriminates against the
similarly situated snowboarders.
Nobody cares that you can't snowboard Alta.
You're welcome, somebody, for your new sig line. Or maybe a new run of stickers. That would look good next to a This Machine Kills Hippies.