Any new news on this?
Printable View
Any new news on this?
The suit was dismissed. Evidently the judge didn't think snowboarders are a protected class. He said, "Hey dudes, just throw on some skis!" Or something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
The fight will go on. The Lienes will subcontract through ISIS now that legal channels are proving unproductive.
^^^^just so ya knows bro
i'm extendin that offer of the use of ski gear for another season
but ya could just keep fightin the good fight smokin the tareytons
Thank ye sir, good chance I'll take you up on that this yr.
Bump for the retards appealing their case for stupidity:
http://fox13now.com/2015/11/17/feder...wboarding-ban/
Is it possible to have all posts from, say, one or two threads deleted? Totally random & has nothing to do with the subject matter here. Tks
not serious
[QUOTE=Bromontana;4597010]Is it possible to have all posts from, say, one or two threads deleted?
AFAIK, If you posted it, then you can delete it.
You cannot delete other's posts...unless...
If you started a thread, then deleting it will wipe out the whole thread.
Which many posters find highly amusing, as you can prolly guess.
3 judge panel, hopefully we are moving forward in a few months...Quote:
Originally Posted by sicktird
Alta is for Nazis.
They got their ghey marriage, wot moar due they want?
fify, which leaves dascunt only 480 (or so) areas to be a cunt at...Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlunt
"we are not restricting people, we are restricting equipment"
I get it, so that is why the local muni golf course won't let me play Frisbee golf. That is just not fair, its a public place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Hubbs
the preferred and politically correct term
is disc golf
frisbees are those things the hippies used to toss at the forest preserves
fore the hacky sacks
I stand corrected, too much patchouli on the brain.
Hey man,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Hubbs
Have you gotten any of my messages/ are you still interested in doing the FKS sale? Would appreciate it if you'd let me know either way.
Nobody cares that you can't ride Alta.
There, I said it.
Incorrect. I care. So do at least 3 other people. And that doesn't even include the plaintiffs!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig
Nope, that is not a even close comparison, you old man. Snowboard and ski are the ONLY approved devices to ride lifts.....world wide. MOnoSkis, which will be used soon in the trial, will basically destroy Alta's old fucks with humor and irony and snowboards will win.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
I don't snowboard, never will, but even a cursory glance at the arguments supporting this ban (on public land) makes it look pretty sad. If they only want to ban equipment, and only from the lifts, they should show that snowboards are more dangerous on the lifts. After all, if snowboarders are free to hike then banning them from the lifts is no protection from any danger they create on snow since they can still get up there. Obviously we all know that banning a piece of equipment is a ban in practice of those who choose to use that equipment, and the veil is thin. Of course it's a business decision, as Alta admits, and that business decision is to cater to a small but relatively underserved market of skiers with an irrationally overstated dislike for snowboarders.
If the issue is blocking the traverse just ban that; if snowboarders can't keep moving pull their passes and profit.
I kinda hate that I find this interesting enough to post, but I do abhor the American habit of taking our hating on others' preferences and turning it into control. And then justifying that using the most twisted logic. It's a far more harmful habit than weed, alcohol, processed goose liver and mutton felching combined. Worse even than snowboarding--or so I hear.
That would work if skiers could keep their shit moving. Alta is probably better than most places but it's not like everyone who skis Alta has actually figured it out. They'd be better off requiring snowboarders to carry poles so they could push like everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
That was kind of my point: apply the real requirement equally to everyone or it's just a sham to hide behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by GPP33
Finally some logic. The old crustys in TGR can't see anything but red with their make believe hate of snowboarders....such a strange form of Douchebaggery.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
Skier walks into the cabin, leaves the door open (12F) and everyone says "Shut the door", he shouts back, "please?"....fucking skiers, or was it a snowboarder......
Skiers are blocking the traverse too....no one wants to admit it....ever.
So what happens when you show up to play Common Ground in cut-off jeans, a tank top and metal spikes, or anyone of three?Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlunt
Ok, so where is the brave soul who will mount snowboard hard boots on sideways risers on the fattest pow ski they can find just to challenge the equipment angle?
"Hey man, it's a ski!"
Cool, five of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Still, nobody cares.
Also, sarcasm.
Do you ski too?Quote:
Originally Posted by DasBlunt
Why is this one area, so close to at least 5 other areas so important...? Just go to the Bird, I actually liked it better than Alta myself.
Entitled, elitist whiners, always wanting what they can't have
Since when can't a business enforce the age old wisdom of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?
You have 477 (ish) out of 480 (ish) areas to ride at; why all the butthurt. Whiny brat syndrome?
I could give less than half a fuck either way, this has gotten completely blown out of proportion by the proverbial "squeaky wheel".
Will you finally STFU after they throw this out again?
I think similar to gay couples suing wedding vendors who refuse them service, it is just to make a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
It's like one of these, just wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-conte...stity-belt.jpg
That would be when a business doesn't own the land they operate on, and the lease agreement they have is not exclusive. Yet they put a chastity belt on the single best pow pow location in the land.
Go look out a window or something, it is within your rights to overlook this thread.
Maybe you could explain
Where in Alta's Conditional Use Permit with USFS is there a stipulation that concessionaire must allow users on any non-motorized snowsport apparatus to use its lifts?
Or does the CUP allow concessionaire to use its judgement in its operations so long as their actions do violate state or federal law?
Or are you saying Snowboarders are a protected class?
This is a false premise. That sentence's question doesn't need a response to resolve the dispute in the courts or with the USFS.Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
As stated above they are allowed to impose restrictions provided they are agreed to with the USFS. Their permit application has to call out the restriction because of the nature of the CUP, from what I gather.Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
This has already been covered. I'm not going to comment aside from no, I don't believe snowsliders should get enhanced equal protection under law. Enhanced is for those at risk of serious injury like minority blood/skin, religion, sexual orientation, etc. From my perspective it dilutes the debate and just serves as rhetoric. Equal protection is guaranteed or noted as a right of everyone, not just members of a protected class. Fundamentally you have to ask the question:Quote:
Originally Posted by TBS
- Should ski resorts operating on public land with heavily subsidized taxpayer leases be allowed to arbitrarily restrict customers? To be arbitrary it must lack merit in terms of a causal factor like protecting business, ensuring safety for customers, etc. From my perspective, I contribute to the pool that subsidizes Alta's operations and relatively low cost tickets. There isn't a safety reason or economic reason for Alta to continue the ban, it's simply an arbitrary decision to exclude 30-40% of the skiing public. If you're private like Deer Valley, the ownership grants greater leeway on business constraints. Alta has a legitimate gripe on the brand thing. Being skier only is a draw and they never lack for visitor days. So then you have a substantial burden being absorbed by a tax paying user base and a private operator with a minor, ultimately trivial, intellectual property claim. Which problem should be realized to alleviate the other?
Quantify an individual taxpayer's burden in this case so we can judge how substantial it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Is this any different than women only gyms (which I also have no problem with)
I'd like to lease a bunch of NF on the cheap in Utah and ban Mormons, for aesthetic reasons.
USFS forfeits a few million a year ya doubting Thomas!Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Merit lacks merit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Quote:
Being skier only is a draw and they never lack for visitor days.
0% equals 30-40%?Quote:
exclude 30-40% of the skiing public.
Where is the forfeiture money coming from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Think Aaron, think.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright