Snowboarders suing a ski slope on constitutional grounds - Page 2 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2014, 12:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supham View Post
So hikers should be allowed as well?
How about I walk my dog?
I have a degree with an emphasis in constitutional law, while I don't have legal precedent for my opinion, and my opinion is no more "valid" than any of yours, I think maybe I can offer a little more insight on the "constitutional rights" of protected classes.

Snowboarders in and of themselves are not protected classes, that's reserved for sex, religion, age, etc. But it doesn't mean that people aren't protected from discrimination.

But, I believe there is some sort of system the US government uses to determine what public lands can be used for. Such as certain land can be hiking only, or hiking and mountain biking. All the way up to something of the effect of Dirt Biking and ATV'ing, while prohibiting hikers from such land. Because its in the best interest of the safety of both parties involved.

So yes, they can open Alta up to snowboarders while still prohibiting hikers and such because of the risks involved with having two different types of recreational activities and the risks involved between having the two on the same land. The same can't be said for having snowboarders and skiers on the same land since both activities are so similar.

I should add that just because snowboarders are not a protected class, does not mean they don't have legal rights to not be discriminated against. Alta is going to have to prove why being skiier only is in the best interest for both parties involved. With 99.9999% of resorts being snowboarder/skier friendly. I think they are going to have a tough time proving it.

The other big issue is its tax payer funded. Hate to say it, but that's going to be the deal breaker for the skiers.

Last edited by MichaelRyanSD; 01-17-2014 at 01:16 PM.
MichaelRyanSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-17-2014, 01:04 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelRyanSD View Post
I have a degree with an emphasis in constitutional law, while I have legal precedent for my opinion, I think maybe I can offer a little more insight on the "constitutional rights" of protected classes.

Snowboarders in and of themselves are not protected classes, that's reserved for sex, religion, age, etc. But it doesn't mean that people aren't protected from discrimination.

But, I believe there is some sort of system the US government uses to determine what public lands can be used for. Such as certain land can be hiking only, or hiking and mountain biking. All the way up to something of the effect of Dirt Biking and ATV'ing, while prohibiting hikers from such land. Because its in the best interest of the safety of both parties involved.

So yes, they can open Alta up to snowboarders while still prohibiting hikers and such because of the risks involved with having two different types of recreational activities and the risks involved between having the two on the same land. The same can't be said for having snowboarders and skiers on the same land since both activities are so similar.

The other big issue is its tax payer funded. Hate to say it, but that's going to be the deal breaker for the skiers.
Nice argument, I hope you are correct. I just have the feeling they are going to let Alta determine the exact types of activities that are allowed. Actually, I bet it never gets that far. Its going to take some $$$ to move forward, I see Alta having deeper pockets unless the group can get the SB industry behind them footing the bill.
supham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 01:07 PM   #13 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisevolution View Post
You're half right... your tax money pays for the land that's owned by the US Forrest Service that Alta ski resort sits on. The resort itself is a privately owned and operated entity and thus everything besides the mountain itself is privately owned. I can see this going the route of allowing boarders to ride the mountain but with no use of the privately owned lifts or lodges which essentially means almost everyone will just go next door to snowbird or down the road to Brighton and Solitude.
Being a privately owned entity on government land is usually considered irrelevant. Its the business choice to operate on the land, not the other way around. In San Diego, there was a case to take down a huge cross on a mountain that overlooked much of the city. The Cross and the monument around it were privately owned, but the mountain they were on was government land. They ultimately won their case and the cross came down (or is coming down).
MichaelRyanSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 01:09 PM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 451
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZveHvu8ZoiI
jml22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 01:10 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
vknyvz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 365
Default

i am sure they will most likely win, coz justice system in this country is not all that you know right lol but hope they will lose some money in the process. alta probably owned by Mormons or something
__________________
Setup
2014 Never Summer Proto HDX 158cm
2012 Flow Trilogy Bindings XL
vknyvz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 01:28 PM   #16 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 67
Default

Read the title and thought this was a joke... holy crap, that must be one of the shittiest business plans ever I hope the snowboarders win. Or at least that the douchebags lose a lot of money in the process
Rasse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 01:49 PM   #17 (permalink)
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jml22 View Post
Just caught the tail end of that, thanks! Interesting stuff...
poutanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 01:59 PM   #18 (permalink)
Member
 
Hank Scorpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Around The Way
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelRyanSD View Post
Being a privately owned entity on government land is usually considered irrelevant. Its the business choice to operate on the land, not the other way around. In San Diego, there was a case to take down a huge cross on a mountain that overlooked much of the city. The Cross and the monument around it were privately owned, but the mountain they were on was government land. They ultimately won their case and the cross came down (or is coming down).
You're talking about the cross on Mt. Soledad, and it's not coming down.... yet. The judge in charge of the case stayed his order pending appeal. As it has been for decades now, the cross will continue to be tied up in the legal process and nothing will actually happen.

Same thing is likely to happen with Alta. An extended court case followed by nothing actually happening.
Hank Scorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 02:14 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Scorpio View Post
You're talking about the cross on Mt. Soledad, and it's not coming down.... yet. The judge in charge of the case stayed his order pending appeal. As it has been for decades now, the cross will continue to be tied up in the legal process and nothing will actually happen.

Same thing is likely to happen with Alta. An extended court case followed by nothing actually happening.
Yeah I grew in San Diego for 25 years, left like 2 years ago (Army). I didn't go into all the detail about that case. Granted nothing has happen yet, but the legal precedent has been set on that case and legally the cross has to come down (When and whether it does, we will see).

To be honest, I watched part of that youtube clip from the UT tribune. They pretty much said the same thing I was saying, about protected classes, and discrimination in regards to snowboarding. Snowboard undoubtedly have an uphill battle against Alta, and what it really is going to come down to is who has higher priced lawyers.
MichaelRyanSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 02:43 PM   #20 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
surfinsnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 721
Default

Hank, I'm baffled and curious...why are you using my avatar for your avatar? That is the top of 53 at Homewood..that is me and my friends. Why is that your avatar? Or is it an amazing coincidence?
surfinsnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums