Alta is for Nazis

[The Gnarwhale]

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/end-snow-separatism/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.

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.






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:

“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.”

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.

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.

[Hugh Conway]

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.

[Bromontana]

Regurgitating old material from abandoned campaigns subtracts from today's discussion. So does mischaracterizing the current litigation as you have done... yet... again....

[DasBlunt]

Just fucking move. Utah is a fascist police state, and SLC is crowded.

Nobody cares that you can't snowboard Alta.

I am in Colorado, I am just here for the Lulz...

[DasBlunt]

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.
.

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..

[Bromontana]

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://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.

[Kenny Satch]

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

[Bunion 2020]

give it up already

long winded quotes and colored fonts that are plain unfuckingreadable and explanations will never change that no ones wants you there for all the right reasons

FIFY.................

[The Gnarwhale]

Regurgitating old material from abandoned campaigns subtracts from today's discussion. So does mischaracterizing the current litigation as you have done... yet... again....

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.

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:

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.

[stuckathuntermtn]

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.

[Kenny Satch]

FIFY.................

you missd out on the Lugan comment
damn shame

[Kenny Satch]

I want Ski runs at Snowbird to be exclusive for Skiers only and if USFC doesn't concide that right then we need a Lawsuit to protect our rights.

[rideit]

I want Ski runs at Snowbird to be exclusive for Skiers only and if USFC doesn't concide that right then we need a Lawsuit to protect our rights.

That'll happen when the republicans repeal Obamacare.

[Bromontana]

"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"

The amendment is explicit in covering all people. Snowboarders, by virtue of being human beings and citizens of the U.S. are afforded equal protection under the 14th.

Protected classes are offered enhanced protection, snowboarders are not. This point is moot, however, because the basic protection of the 14th ensures that policies which create a form of inequality must have a rational basis.

Alta's policy is on record as being based on safety. Everyone knows that argument is hollow. Without that there is no reason to exclude boarders beyond the arbitrary decision of a few people. And arbitrary is specifically called out as not being a valid basis for exclusion.

[Kenny Satch]

I want the right to have the right to be right about things that seem wrong even though the rights of the many can at times be waived due to the right of protecting the rights of the rightist even if they're wrong about their rights.

you got that right as I would say

sounds like boarders making an argument

[Kenny Satch]

That'll happen when the republicans repeal Obamacare.

you promise

[DasBlunt]

"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"

The amendment is explicit in covering all people. Snowboarders, by virtue of being human beings and citizens of the U.S. are afforded equal protection under the 14th.

Protected classes are offered enhanced protection, snowboarders are not. This point is moot, however, because the basic protection of the 14th ensures that policies which create a form of inequality must have a rational basis.

Alta's policy is on record as being based on safety. Everyone knows that argument is hollow. Without that there is no reason to exclude boarders beyond the arbitrary decision of a few people. And arbitrary is specifically called out as not being a valid basis for exclusion.

Exactly...... If it makes it to trial, they will be forced, and it will not be pretty.

[The Gnarwhale]

Where are you seeing Alta's policy being based on safety?

I see where the suit describes a conversation between (Skullcandy CEO) Rick Alden and (Alta GM) Onno. Onno is quoted as saying:

Shortly thereafter, Alta’s General Manager, Onno Wieringa, appeared on the
scene and told Plaintiffs that, among other things, Alta’s anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban is “really just a business decision.” Mr. Wieringa further stated that Alta “can
make enough money to be sustainable by just offering skiing, not getting into tubing, not getting
into ziplines and bungees and snowboarding.” When Plaintiffs asked what harm would result
from allowing snowboarding, Mr. Wieringa responded that Alta’s policies work for Alta because
“we like it, our skiers like it, our owners like it, and the Forest Service says it’s OK.”

The suit goes on to describe Alta's policy being based upon this:

51. Alta’s Plan states that uphill and downhill travel must be accepted and approved
by Alta and that Alta “reserves the right to exclude any type of skiing device that they deem
creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers and/or the user of the device, or any device they deem
Case 2:14-cv-00026-PMW Document 2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 11 of 262
causes undue damages to the quality of the snow, or is not consistent with the business
management decisions.”
52. Ostensibly under this provision, Alta enforces its anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban. By approving Alta’s Plan, the USFS has allowed Alta to ban snowboarders
from using public land.

It seems like it's the "business decision" clause and not a trumped up safety one that managment cites as the reason?

Also, lawsuit seems to take the angle that Alta discriminates against anyone who occasionally snowboards/has snowboarded/owns a snowboard. And that's not true. They'll sell anyone a ticket, even died-in-the-wool snowboarders, as long as that person is on skis that day.

To conserve space and avoid belaboring the point, “snowboarders,” as used hereinafter, refers
both to people who snowboard and the type of people that Alta’s ownership, management, and
customers believe to participate in snowboarding.

I really doubt that the ticket office spends much time speculating about the "type of people" that participate in snowboarding.

[Kenny Satch]

[QUOTE=DasBlunt;4229681]it will not be pretty.[/QUOT

Regilion, Race, Politics and or Life choices are not the people being denied access to Alta but the knuckheads that think they're in the same league of discrimination are PRETTY fuckin
stupid
stupid
stupid

[smitchell333]

Fighting the fight for such important issues as whether you can ride your board down some ski hill that for its (possibly foolish) own business reasons has excluded your toy.

Whats next? - roller skate rinks have to allow skateboards? Downhill mtn bike courses have to allow mountain boards? Crosscountry skiing areas have to allow snowmobiles? Ski resorts have to allow tubing on all runs?

[Bromontana]

Where are you seeing Alta's policy being based on safety?

Under a 40-year permit issued to Alta by the Forest Service in 2002, the ski area is allowed to restrict any type of skiing device that creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers.

The Forest Service said it agrees with Alta that the way snowboarders slide down the slopes is a legitimate safety concern for skiers. In a filing last week, Alta attorneys explained that skiers find the slopes at Alta more peaceful, safe and enjoyable because they don't have to worry about being hit by snowboarders whose sideways stance leaves them with a blind spot that can make their wide, sweeping turns a danger to others on the slopes.

"These differences create safety concerns that can be avoided or minimized by not allowing snowboarders," Forest Service lawyers wrote in the new filing.
<article>

Shortly thereafter, Alta’s General Manager, Onno Wieringa, appeared on the
scene and told Plaintiffs that, among other things, Alta’s anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban is “really just a business decision.” Mr. Wieringa further stated that Alta “can
make enough money to be sustainable by just offering skiing, not getting into tubing, not getting
into ziplines and bungees and snowboarding.” When Plaintiffs asked what harm would result
from allowing snowboarding, Mr. Wieringa responded that Alta’s policies work for Alta because
“we like it, our skiers like it, our owners like it, and the Forest Service says it’s OK.”

This is one area I think is clear in the law but don't know of any precedent, so it's difficult to predict how the judge will process that argument. It's Alta's best argument and a perfectly valid one for places like MRG and DV. The problem is the ARE in the snowboarding business because from a safety/functional/landuse pov skiing and snowboarding are one industry. They are interchangeable and while Alta is in the industry, they've arbitrarily chosen to ban snowboarding. Clever business plans that exclude millions of people from accessing public land. The negative impact (harm) of their policy is denying the experience they proudly describe to a significant portion of the tax paying public.

It seems like it's the "business decision" clause and not a trumped up safety one that managment cites as the reason?

The USFS's court filing was all over the safety claim, per above. As the overseer of Alta's lease and federal representative, USFS reasoning is critical.

Also, lawsuit seems to take the angle that Alta discriminates against anyone who occasionally snowboards/has snowboarded/owns a snowboard. And that's not true. They'll sell anyone a ticket, even died-in-the-wool snowboarders, as long as that person is on skis that day.

Concede the point but I don't think that has any bearing. It's upstream of the conflict.

I really doubt that the ticket office spends much time speculating about the "type of people" that participate in snowboarding.

They don't, they simply ban everyone on one plank*

*unless you skiboard

[mtl_ripper]

I snowboard and don't give a shit about riding Alta. Enjoy your hill. Plenty of other places for me to carve!

[bmg97]

Would someone just open up a mountain for snowboarders only and shut these fucking cunts up.

[nc_slater]

I snowboard and don't give a shit about riding Alta. Enjoy your hill. Plenty of other places for me to carve!

Right on. There's got to be somewhere for them to unite, better Alta than somewhere worthwhile

[DasBlunt]

Where are you seeing Alta's policy being based on safety?

I see where the suit describes a conversation between (Skullcandy CEO) Rick Alden and (Alta GM) Onno. Onno is quoted as saying:

Shortly thereafter, Alta’s General Manager, Onno Wieringa, appeared on the
scene and told Plaintiffs that, among other things, Alta’s anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban is “really just a business decision.” Mr. Wieringa further stated that Alta “can
make enough money to be sustainable by just offering skiing, not getting into tubing, not getting
into ziplines and bungees and snowboarding.” When Plaintiffs asked what harm would result
from allowing snowboarding, Mr. Wieringa responded that Alta’s policies work for Alta because
“we like it, our skiers like it, our owners like it, and the Forest Service says it’s OK.”

The suit goes on to describe Alta's policy being based upon this:
51. Alta’s Plan states that uphill and downhill travel must be accepted and approved
by Alta and that Alta “reserves the right to exclude any type of skiing device that they deem
creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers and/or the user of the device, or any device they deem
Case 2:14-cv-00026-PMW Document 2 Filed 01/15/14 Page 11 of 262
causes undue damages to the quality of the snow, or is not consistent with the business
management decisions.”
52. Ostensibly under this provision, Alta enforces its anti-snowboarder policy and
snowboarding ban. By approving Alta’s Plan, the USFS has allowed Alta to ban snowboarders
from using public land.




It seems like it's the "business decision" clause and not a trumped up safety one that managment cites as the reason?

Also, lawsuit seems to take the angle that Alta discriminates against anyone who occasionally snowboards/has snowboarded/owns a snowboard. And that's not true. They'll sell anyone a ticket, even died-in-the-wool snowboarders, as long as that person is on skis that day.



I really doubt that the ticket office spends much time speculating about the "type of people" that participate in snowboarding.

Wow, amazing.

Thank you for the help on this case, this information and the logical order presented is actually very helpful to the snowboard lobby. It points out Alta's illogical safety defense, and it shows their cards about how the conversation went WITH the forest service. Awesome.

Seems the forest service are the real defendants, and will ultimately have to require Alta to revise their master plan.

It is done.