Results 251 to 275 of 383
Thread: Knuckledraggers sue Alta
-
01-27-2014, 04:32 PM #251Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Posts
- 9
Same comments/arguments on this thread can be found on the KKK website.
David Quinney, a minority owner of Alta, told the Associated Press that customers prefer to have the mountain kept for skiers only.
Quinney said the clash that separated skiers and snowboarders in the 1990s is a matter of safety, not style.
“I’m a skier (white), always have been (white),” he said. “There are skiers (whites) out there that appreciate going to a place that allows skiers (whites) only, not (blacks or jews) snowboarders.”
-
01-27-2014, 10:26 PM #252
What all you snowboarders don't Seem to understand (since u keep repeating it) is that comparing your plight to that of the civil rights movement and what oppressed minorities have gone through only serves to make you all look like a bunch of petulant, whinny bitches, too fucking classless and stupid to even understand how insulting the comparison is.
-
01-27-2014, 10:30 PM #253spook Guest
-
01-27-2014, 10:34 PM #254
-
01-27-2014, 10:57 PM #255Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
-
01-27-2014, 11:36 PM #256observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
Erm, I thought skiers brought up-then proceeded to beat like a dead horse -the protected class argument?
The skiers here seem to believe that since this is dramatically less harmful discrimination than civil rights abuses of the 20th century, we should simply accept it and be glad the bird allows access. The snowboarders say fuck you it's my land too.Last edited by Bromontana; 01-27-2014 at 11:49 PM. Reason: more taughts
-
01-28-2014, 12:18 AM #257
No douchebag, it's not Your Land. The land is owned by the United States Government, with proceeds from its use going to the US Treasury. Despite what Teh TeaTards may tell you, the general public does not have an encumbered right to use a given parcel of federal land - USFS, BLM & NPS decide who, when and under what conditions someone can use their land. Just like you don't have the right to direct the activities of any government official.
Question for the legal mags - Is whiny, self-entitled douchebag a protected class under Federal law? Because that's the only theory I can come up with to support plaintiffs claim...
-
01-28-2014, 01:00 AM #258spook Guest
-
01-28-2014, 01:42 AM #259not awesome
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Location
- SW Jongistan
- Posts
- 451
AFAIK special use permits and commercial permits for National Forest or BLM land often include the ability to control who can access the land. Examples would include mining claims and logging areas that are posted no trespassing, shooting ranges and the like, and presumably ski areas.
I tried to hike my local little ski hill (on NF land) after the base area melted out, and they kicked me out. They were still "operating" because they spin the lift for tourist rides. I imagine they kicked me out for insurance paranoia reasons. Is this legal? Possibly not. Would it be hard for me to fight this? Absolutely, especially since they were "operating." See all the arguments about which areas allow uphill traffic. The terms of permits allow areas a lot of free rein in making rules about what can happen on the land. Once you accept that, it's not just about unrestricted access to public land, and you have to go back to the idea that regulating snowboarding vs. skiing is discriminatory, and then we get back into this protected class argument which is a non-starter.
-
01-28-2014, 02:15 AM #260Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,449
as time passes it becomes very clear that this thread is less about any sport and where to engage in said sport and more about an ignorant, fearful crowd where sack a lackin!!!!!
-
01-28-2014, 02:19 AM #261
-
01-28-2014, 02:20 AM #262Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,449
p.s. "the government" manages land held in trust for we the fuckin peeple!!!!!! any day now i spect the alta haters to loose the dogs, turn on the fire hoses, and watch in horror as the big meat satisfy their bitches!!!!!!!
-
01-28-2014, 02:33 AM #263u
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Summit Park UT
- Posts
- 1,100
This has all been said before, but I just don't understand why people dont understand it so I'll say it again. Alta isn't discriminating against anyone. Anyone is welcome to go ski at Alta (as long as you pay for a lift ticket etc), you just can't snowboard there. Not allowing snowboards is not discrimination against anyone. Black people were discriminated against when they were forced to ride in the back of the bus and drink from a separate water fountain. Women were discriminated against when they were not allowed to vote. Saying some people are discriminated against because they are allowed to go ski at Alta like everyone else, but just can't use there snowboards there, is ridiculous. Yes, I am aware it is federal land. No, I am not anti snowboarding. I ski at Alta, and I really don't care if they allow snowboarding or not. I just think the discrimination argument is ridiculous.
-
01-28-2014, 03:11 AM #264Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,449
NEWS FLASH!!!!! boarder revolt at halta captured on film!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://fullmovies.cc/movie/64189
-
01-28-2014, 06:01 AM #265
-
01-28-2014, 08:46 AM #266observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
what the USFS tells Alta: "the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes."
Snowboarding and skiing are interchangeable activities that do not compete with one another and are permitted on USFS land. What is the rational basis for excluding a use accepted by 99.5% of the industry and the WCNF?
-
01-28-2014, 09:12 AM #267
Alta's business model and marketing.
Again the land IS open to boarders. More than one boarder had made the trek out baldy, come thru the high keyhole gate, boarded down Peruvian Gultch, and hopped the bus back to the bird. Or Hiked up Patsy Marley and boarded down thru Albion Basin.
It's the lifts that Alta controls. This isn't a difficult concept.This is the worst pain EVER!
-
01-28-2014, 10:56 AM #268
-
01-28-2014, 10:56 AM #269observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
-
01-28-2014, 11:11 AM #270
-
01-28-2014, 11:12 AM #271
-
01-28-2014, 11:31 AM #272
What about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ImOOS29CGM
-
01-28-2014, 11:56 AM #273observing free range rude
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- below the Broads Fork Twins
- Posts
- 5,772
- No uphill traffic, except at night
- No boarder access allowed from mid/upper mountain gates
Use of the land and snow is heavily restricted when it comes to snowboards. To the point where you could argue it's an effective ban on access, not just lifts. You can also argue the fear-mongering among skiers is based on anecdotes and stereotypes rather than statistical review of the disciplines.
While saying it's a lift-only ban is a cute way to package your argument, it's not accurate.
-
01-28-2014, 12:01 PM #274
-
01-28-2014, 12:02 PM #275
I really don't understand why knuckledraggers have such a strong need to ride Alta lifts. They've invaded 99.9% of all other resorts out there...but that's apparently not good enough for them. For some reason, they won't be happy until there's a 100% infection rate for all resorts. Why is that so damned important?
Bookmarks