Knuckledraggers sue Alta

[Hutch]

Here's an interesting idea, that I had not thought of, if deciding for the plaintiffs violates Alta’s lease terms, does that create a takings case for Alta against the government?

Food for thought....

Still pretty hungry after that one.

[HansJob]

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

one of these two:
--->Sexual orientation
--->Gender identity

[irul&ublo]

There's a basic problem for the snowboarders' 14th amend claim:

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.

[that dude who did that thing]

There's a basic problem for the snowboarders' 14th amend claim:

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.

That's pretty harsh, even Dahmers of the world get due process. Not saying you're wrong, just harsh.

[irul&ublo]

That's pretty harsh, even Dahmers of the world get due process. Not saying you're wrong, just harsh.

Point taken, but Dahmer never postholed a traverse.

[Johnny Deep]

Point taken, but Dahmer never postholed a traverse.

I laughed out loud.

[DickMerkin]

Stupid shit, silly shit.

[robgoose]

The complicating issue is that it is a business run on and by license of the Feds. Not sure how that will work out. The equal protection clause claim only addresses government action; depending on the nature of the group being subjected to disparate treatment, for ex., a racial group as opposed to a bunch of mouth breathing, unwashed knuckle draggers, the justification for the disparate treatment by the government will be examined on a different basis. If the group is a "protected class", the standard is going to be very high, if not impossible. If not, then the government would only need to show a rational basis for the disparate treatment.

An individual business, non government related, refusing to do business with someone, even on the basis of their race, is not an equal protection issue under federal law. It may be addressed under other federal laws or state laws.

Here, plaintiffs acknowledge the standard is rational basis-- although they try to make boarders sound like a protected class. the Alleged government action is allowing Alta to set the requirements for the necessary equipment to use the terrain. plaintiffs allege that the gov't does so knowing that Alfa is engaged in discriminatory behavior.

But, there is clearly a rational basis for allowing Alta to make those determinations -- they are running the business and know their customer base -- and -- as I am sure you know -- the rational basis standard is incredibly loose anyway: something along the lines of: could a sentient being reasonably thinks this makes sense?

But, in this case, there is a uniform standard and no disparate treatment. Nobody is allowed to ride the lifts on a snowboard -- everybody is allowed to ride the lifts on skis. I personally think it's an outdated policy-- but I don't see any Constitutional Issue. Plaintiffs would be better served by lobbying their elected reps. Or the forest service.

[jmedslc]

Seems like a strange business decision to exclude paying customers. Id love to know the logic behind the policy.

I think the logic is simple - "Alta is for Skiers"

didn't they have some town meeting some years ago where they got input from 'the public' (ie: Alta town residents) as to whether or not they should allow snowboarders?

[ak_powder_monkey]

This is funny

What did Schmitt say?

"People who sue ski areas should be shot"

Snowboarders kinda ruin a lot of fun resort skiing. I'd pay a premium for a hill with no snowboards, I imagine there's a lot of others who would as well. Probably one of the reasons Alta is so successful.

On a side note, section 2 of the 14th amendment is super contradictory to section one

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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Indians and women don't get counted toward representatives (this has been changed right?!?!)

[Johnny Deep]

" But there's no place in that book where it says nothing about killing a Chinese." -Sam Dodds

[powder11]

I'd think BJ Leines would have better things to do these days. Maybe he should get a job on daddy's pipeline. It's too bad the losers of lawsuits don't have to cover the expenses of the winning party like happens in a lot of other developed countries. I know US lawyers would never let that happen, but it's a shame a ski resort has to defend itself from a bunch of whiney bitch ass snowboard punks.

[DrGonzo]

Everything about this is comical - The lawsuit, snowboarders claiming they're a "protected class," and the reactions to both.

Alta is a rad place that I'd love to ride. I already ski (poorly) there occasionally, and drink there often. The place "feels" good, and it has nothing to do with anyone's method of downhill transportation.

The argument about the traverses is stupid. Next door, there are just as many shitty skiers clogging up the Cirque as there are shitty riders, and IMO the High-T is a much easier traverse. And who gives a fuck if someone postholes your traverse? It's not a skin-track.

Anyone who thinks that snowboarders see themselves as any kind of counter-culture hasn't been paying attention for the last 15 years, and the so-called "skittle thugs" in LCC belong mostly to "freeskiing." Snowboards ruin the snow? Modern ski technology leveled that playing field a long time ago - Beaters of both varieties can now access terrain that they previously couldn't and still shouldn't.

This lawsuit goes nowhere, and it will be status quo at Alta until it isn't.

Until then, I'll keep riding the Bird because no one gives a fuck that I don't ski at Alta.

[Tippster]

I don't care what happens at Alta.
but clearly one good solution would be to ban skiers at the Bird!
Win-win!

You shut your whore mouth.

I bet the monoboarders are miffed they didn't think of this lawsuit first. Irked, even.

[ill-advised strategy]

Snowboarders have Brighton, skiers have Alta.

Get over it.

[coretard]

http://ia700208.us.archive.org/3/ite...45.docket.html

Morman,Morman and Morman

[axebiker]

I'd pay a premium for a hill with no snowboards

So says the guy who can't get/keep a job...

[cat in january]

JONG SLAUGHTER got it right with the 3rd post. It is leased, maintained recreation land-happens all over the place.

[skiingfiddler]

Alta hasn't sued any of the snowboarders riding down from Snowbird...

[VTColdSmoke]

ahhh suck it Alta!

[TyeDyeTwins]

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.

They are gonna find out the hard way that A.L.T.A. stands for Another Long Traverse Again!

[ski_adk]

They are gonna find out the hard way that A.L.T.A. stands for Another Long Traverse Again!

If the knuckledraggers ever get their way, may they all ride right down the middle of Glory Hole or get sucked into bottom of Punch Bowl.

[goldengatestinx]

i was drawn in by "knuckedraggers".

Working at the extinct Sports Illustrated NextSnow competition for kids...A bunch of guys from around the country were judges...typical shit between snowboarders and skiers in the group...heading to the next venue across a long flat...snowboarding judge buckled in bending over pulling himself along with his hands...fucking hilarious...

'Fucking knuckledragger' as I coast by him...fucking funny as he got pissed but he knew I was right...

[TBS]

For the legal mags here, what is the typical period in which a defendant must respond? Then how long will the judge have to consider Alta's motion of summary judgement for dismissal?

[Bromontana]

They are gonna find out the hard way that A.L.T.A. stands for Another Long Traverse Again!

After all your stoke on SP you lay this sh*t down? Please apologize on TGR and vine ASAP