http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...d2+MKW20140115
Why do these dumb knuckledraggers want to ride Alta so bad.
Alta sucks. It's flat and full of uphill traverses.
Printable View
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...d2+MKW20140115
Why do these dumb knuckledraggers want to ride Alta so bad.
Alta sucks. It's flat and full of uphill traverses.
The vast gaping hole in that argument is that "snowboarders" are permitted at Alta-- Snowboards are not. (And I think Alta should allow snowboarding).
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANY GAPE.
SUCK A COCK KNUCKLEDRAGGERS.
Plaintiffs include Rick Alden. Publicity stunt much?
I'd rather have been born gay than born a snowboarder. NTTAWWT. At least I could get off without having to bend over. Oh, wait.
Super bummed to be posting in a thread was started by a lame alias but maybe that is all that is left here.
snowboarders can afford lawyers?
Are they really trying to make a "Protected Class" argument?
hahahahahhhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! can't wait to ride the bus today and tease the haters!!!!
That's embarrassing. How you chose to partake in a first world sport doesn't make you a protected class. As said above, Alta would suck for snowboarding anyway. Do we have to capitalize the word Snowboarder now?
Attachment 148606
*BREAKING*BREAKING*BREAKING*BREAKING*BREAKING*BREA KING*BREAKING*
deer valley has begun organizing rescue operations in an attempt to repatriate hater skiers from alta and return them to more familiar skier only territory. special slings will be used in an attempt to protect the highly inflamed butthurt skiers.
If snowboarders were gay, then they'd have a case.
With $350 literally anyone can file a federal lawsuit, no matter how meritless. It seems someone felt compelled to prove that point once again.
Waiting for DBS's insightful comments here. Not.
Dan Samas does federal lawsuits too?Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker
mommy troll alias, yer such a fucking cunt. and no one cares what happens at alta. nor that you been holed up there since 87'. that is all:)
rog
That link didn't work for me
http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/283...obile_direct=y
Maybe they are arguing that snowboarding is a disability.
Protected Classes:
Race/ethnicity
Religion
Color
National origin
Age (40 and over)
Sexual orientation
Individuals with disabilities
Veteran status
Sex
Height
Weight
Marital status
Gender identity
Genetic information
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SLC hospitals bracing for an outbreak of Scooch Leg.
A point frequently missed in these discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by robgoose
It's the same as resorts not allowing pow surfing, snow skates, etc.
Isn't this argument tired now? Who cares. Spend your money elsewhere, like right across the street.
why anyone would spend money to ride lifts in a range with bc access so easy and plentiful has always been beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
rog
ADVISORY: SALT LAKE AREA MOUNTAINS Issued by Bruce Tremper for January 16, 2014 - 5:35am
BOTTOM LINE
The avalanche danger remains at Level 3 (CONSIDERABLE) – large avalanches are possible in specific terrain. Although the probability of triggering an avalanche is small, if you do, the avalanche will be very large, deep and difficult to survive. This deep slab problem is most pronounced on northwest through north through easterly facing slopes, above about 9,500. The avalanche danger for wet slides will rise to MODERATE on and below steep sunny slopes as the day heats up.
http://utahavalanchecenter.org/advisory/salt-lake
Its funny because snowboarding is actually permitted at alta. snowboards are simply not allowed on the lifts, which are operated by a private company that can refuse service to anyone.
Makin waves....
Because they don't know how to ski? And because the snowpack is rotten and shitty?Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
Do we really need 4 threads on the subject?
apparently so
Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
i was drawn in by "knuckedraggers".
I laughed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoova
Attachment 148609
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well theres the safety factor. I'm glad big john and the kids from texas didnt hike straight up superior and trigger a slide on the guys beneath him. anyways thanks for the threadjack rawj.Quote:
Originally Posted by icelanticskier
I'm not sure this is true. Didn't a bunch of borders get cited last year at the closing day party? Has something to do with alta providing safety etc. for those on the leased land.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmedslc
Knew you'd respond, little bitch:)Quote:
Originally Posted by chatton18
Rog
I'm posting to secure my space in this very important discussion.
Me too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Deep
#33...........
Where is this Alta you speak of, and does their shop mount snowboards, and if so, where?
That issue will relate to the level of scrutiny or review required as opposed to whether a group is entitled to equal treatmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
But a business can refuse service to anyone unless they are a protected class, no? When bartending I can refuse to serve drinks to anyone because I think they shouldn't drink, but I cannot refuse service to someone for being black. You cannot ride up the lifts with a Toboggan or MT. Bike in the winter either, so wouldn't the snowboarders in this case need to demonstrate that they are a protected class and thus cannot be "discriminated" against?Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo
I don't care what happens at Alta.
but clearly one good solution would be to ban skiers at the Bird!
Win-win!
Tippster's got it exactly right. Snowboarders aren't a protected class but if Alta refused service to only black snowboarders, there would be a case.
I'm going to get three buddies together and sue WSDOT for not allowing us to ride our bikes on I-5 through downtown Seattle. About as much of a chance of winning that as these guys have with their little bitch session.
^^^This is a good idea.
I think I'm going to sue the state of California for not allowing me to ride my mountain bike off paved roads in state parks. Hikers can go there - totally discriminatory.
Contrary to popular belief, snowboarders access the public land at Alta all the time. They access it before Alta opens in the fall and after Alta closes in the spring. They access it via the gates from Snowbird all the time. They access it from the top of Patsy Marley. So to say that the USFS allows Alta to prohibit snowboarder on public land is a bit disingenuous.
What Alta prohibits is the riding of the lifts, which ARE privately owned. This is no different than a fine dining restaurant denying access based on dress code. Show up with out a jacket and a tie, and sorry no service. Put on said jacket and tie and come right in please. This case is going nowhere.