or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Snowboarders sue Alta Ski Area
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Snowboarders sue Alta Ski Area - Page 11  

post #301 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

There are many examples of these fights. Hikers don't like to hear motors. So don't hike on roads. Or close roads to motorized use to increase your enjoyment. Mountain bikers don't like equestrians - our MTB stoke thread turned into an anti-horse discourse for a bit, despite the obvious notion that horse property owners probably have the political clout to ensure trails are protected from development so that broke ass mountain bikers can complain about them.
 

 

Pfft!  If anything, wealthy equestrians have used their political clout to keep trails closed from bike access.  That's where the animosity comes from.

 

Anyway...

 

I thought the snowboard ban at Alta was stupid... until I actually skied there.  There is some validity to the traversing argument.  At Alpine Meadows we also have some very long, long traverses where stopping your momentum is a huge PITA.  Most of the time it happens it's because a snowboarder is in the way scooting along (or sitting down) and it's extremely frustrating.  Skiers can cause this problem too, but it's far less often.

post #302 of 326
@litterbug,The difference is that in my 3 or 4 days at Alta (all reasonably big days), I've seen people push, elbow, and stab (with a pole) slower traversers.  Worse, it seemed to be the norm. 
 
I have seen plenty of random rude behavior by both skiers and boarders throughout the country. However, the key word is "random". Most places, most people are pretty darn nice (if sometimes bit clueless or a shade "overenthusiastic"). The bottom line is that the repeating combo of behavior and smug entitlement I saw at Alta is unique in my experience. Both the "local" flavor and the "regular visitor" flavor.
 
Seeing people trying to give aid to someone down and who could not talk coherently being pushed and kicked off the traverse, juxtaposed a few minutes later with a guy on the lift cackling about how great Alta is because there are no "young punk" boarders present left a lasting impression. Not a good one. Especially as the thinly veiled age/political/cultural bias built into the anti-boarder rant was repeated ad nauseum on multiple lift rides per day. 
 
I very well might go to Alta again for the snow and terrain and a quant lodge experience. But if I do, it'll be knowing I need to be chill and  ignore a vibe that likely could not exist without Alta itself fostering it.
 
BTW - why not cut two traverses near each other - high and higher for different speeds? No shortage of speed differentials between skiers too. Hence much of what I saw.  It isn't like the high T is a scenic route through pristine wilderness.
post #303 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

These positions are all legal manueverings which are on the lunatic fringe of logic more like politics instead of reason

I think most restricted access issues are more like politics than reason. That's why laws are passed to ensure fairness and why we have courts to interpret the meaning of laws that are enacted when they get applied outside of the original intent.

Doesn't seem all that outrageous to me to have courts answer the question as to whether the law should extend to "defining lifestyle choices" in terms of restricting access.

Just use skis. But I am NOT a skier (well, I am smile.gif). Alta is for Skiers. Even the resort motto says that means something more than "uses skis".
post #304 of 326
Sure, but the motto isnt enforcable nor is it enforced. Only the equipment is. You put on skis you are a skier and afforded the same access regardless of how you self identify or look or feel or talk.
If the plantiffs feel this isn't, they need to try it, not just make the leap that even if we go on skis they will discriminate against us, so why bother until they let boards in.


If you go to a football game that says Cowboys country as a visitor does that mean you feel discriminated against because of a motto? Are prices or facilities not accessible to you as long as you follow the same dress code? Do you go sue so you have equal access (to what exactly? No mottos allowed) because of someone elses feeling?
post #305 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooky View Post

The ban of longboards, scooters, rollerskates, and rollerblades is completely baseless and is more like the snowboard ban at Alta. There is no real safety or right of way issue at Alta; there is only inconvenience. More later.

I think that's a good analogy. Longboards, etc. are the same class of equipment so the ban reeks of "read the sign - you get an X".

Half of it is they probably just don't want to change the signs given the code process behind that effort.
post #306 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

Sure, but the motto isnt enforcable nor is it enforced. Only the equipment is. You put on skis you are a skier and afforded the same access regardless of how you self identify or look or feel or talk.

Yep. And you can dress in women's clothes and get free drinks at happy hour.
post #307 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


Yep. And you can dress in women's clothes and get free drinks at happy hour.

 

Because choosing your gender and choosing between using a snowboard or using skis for today's recreation is the same, and just as easy right?

If you got a full sex-change, and assuming gender-based happy hours are legal in your state, i'd bet you'd get a free drink (in most states they are not legal for the failures of gender as a class, but not All that you're basing your statement on in the first place, [but snowsport equipment as a class does not meet the same tests]).

I can't even tell which side you're arguing here anymore either.  Are you saying that HH promotions should be equal or not?  Is the arbitrariness of who gets a free drink a legal business practice in your book? 

 

 

Anyway, plus they didn't even try it.  That's what gets me.  Alta takes the position saying "come on in as long as you're on skis".  Plantiffs say it's not about equipment.  Then call their bluff, test it out and bring the evidence that you're still not allowed despite being on skis and show they still won't let you in due to lifestyle.

 

The analogy here would be if a place offered happy hour based on if you wear a dress and high heels only to skirt a gender-based rule.  And a male came in fitting fulfilling the requirements but was still denied.  That would be an interesting argument to try to puzzle out if the promotion was legal or not; and if the casepoint of a male was being denied establishes intent of the promotion.
But again, gender is a protected and recognized class different then equipment, so you can't use the same logic to the Alta case.


Edited by raytseng - 8/13/14 at 5:20pm
post #308 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

Because choosing your gender and choosing between using a snowboard or using skis for today's recreation is the same, and just as easy right?

Of course not. But the question raised as to whether choice of equipment means more than choice of equipment may not be absurd. Or it may be. Much of the identity of a snowboarder can certainly seen directly as "NOT skier". So "just use skis" doesn't work. That is seemingly the point, which doesn't mean that restricted access is unlawful, but there isn't any statute that says "you can ban snowboarders from public use of public transportation on public lands", either.

Philpug said not too long ago in another context "There are people who ski. And there are skiers." We draw these distinctions all the time and assign a degree of identity meaning to them.
Quote:
I can't even tell which side you're arguing here anymore either.

I am on the side that believes skiers and snowboarders assign a great deal of personal identity to their status and that equipment merely reflects that identity, and as a result, "change your identity to mine and you can have access" doesn't work.

Now as to whether the law should protect that level of identity assignment vs. say gender assignment, I don't know. IMO they should have just left it at "no response required", because these various defenses begin to make the plaintiff's point as they are as absurd as the original argument in order to rise to the level of restricting access to public transportation on public lands where in every other case no such restriction exists.
post #309 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


Of course not. But the question raised as to whether choice of equipment means more than choice of equipment may not be absurd. Or it may be. Much of the identity of a snowboarder can certainly seen directly as "NOT skier". So "just use skis" doesn't work. That is seemingly the point, which doesn't mean that restricted access is unlawful, but there isn't any statute that says "you can ban snowboarders from public use of public transportation on public lands", either.

Philpug said not too long ago in another context "There are people who ski. And there are skiers." We draw these distinctions all the time and assign a degree of identity meaning to them.
I am on the side that believes skiers and snowboarders assign a great deal of personal identity to their status and that equipment merely reflects that identity, and as a result, "change your identity to mine and you can have access" doesn't work.

Now as to whether the law should protect that level of identity assignment vs. say gender assignment, I don't know. IMO they should have just left it at "no response required", because these various defenses begin to make the plaintiff's point as they are as absurd as the original argument in order to rise to the level of restricting access to public transportation on public lands where in every other case no such restriction exists.


Hmm, I don't know what to say. 


If the plantiffs (or you) really are feeling that their identity is so tied to their equipment and directly as "NOT a skier", that it feels similar in awkwardness in identity to them like dressing in drag would be to a gender-identified man.

 

sounds to me like someone needs a hug. 

 

That being said, I'm going to try snowboarding again this season...

post #310 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post


Hmm, I don't know what to say. 


If the plantiffs (or you) really are feeling that their identity is so tied to their equipment and directly as "NOT a skier", that it feels similar in awkwardness in identity to them like dressing in drag would be to a gender-identified man.

sounds to me like someone needs a hug. 

That being said, I'm going to try snowboarding again this season...

I do need a hug, thank you biggrin.gif. And I do think these plaintiffs assign enough identity to "NOT a skier" to act on it. That's the entire point.

If you told me that skiing had been banned worldwide and all I could do was snowboard, I'd probably get my mountain fix on snowshoes. Skiing and snowboarding are neither the same thing nor interchangeable, although plenty of people are good at both. I don't need something else to suck at. Sucking at things repetitively requires passion.

Like I said, I don't know if this rises to the level of legal protection, but then why does any identity choice entitle protection? If some identity choice rises to that level maybe you can help me understand where it should stop?

Why is a religious identity more valued than an aesthetic identity under the law? Do you have a sound legal principle for that?
post #311 of 326

Sorry if this has been discussed, I've been in and out of this thread -- more out than in -- but it's an interesting question.

 

This is a 14th Amendment question, right?  Equal protection?  The argument that defeated California's Prop. 8 was an equal protection argument: that while certain classes of persons are permitted to marry under Prop. 8, other classes are not -- e.g., straight people can marry each other, gay people cannot.  The argument that, "well, doesn't that allow polygamy, or the marrying of pets?" is spurious because nobody is allowed multiple simultaneous spouses in this country, and nobody can marry a pet. 

 

In this case, I'm not sure how "being a snowboarder" equates to personhood at the same level.  It's generally conceded that being gay isn't a choice like choosing to ride one board rather than two -- it's an immutable genetic variation, like skin color, eye color, or height.  Maybe it will be shown someday that all lifestyle choices are inscribed in our genes, but until then, it's hard to see snowboarding as anything other than an equipment preference, which the 14th Amendment doesn't protect. 

post #312 of 326
The link to the legal motion on post 25_ whatever outlined the legal precedents and "tests" required to form a class for which the 14 amendment applies and a class of one unique class. Then it went over why the plantiff's arguments of a snowboarder failed those tests. Its beyond my skill to recap all of that or find potential flaws so if you're truly interested go read through the motion and the cited cases from which the precedents and tests are drawn
post #313 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

The link to the legal motion on post 25_ whatever outlined the legal precedents and "tests" required to form a class for which the 14 amendment applies and even why a class of one uniqueness doesnt apply either. Then it went over why the plantiffs arguments of snowboarder failed those tests. Its beyond my skill to recap all of that or find potential flaws so if you're truly interested go read through the motion and the cited cases from which the precedents and tests are drawn

 

 

Thanks.  I'll check it out.

post #314 of 326
@spindrift said:
Quote:
@litterbug,The difference is that in my 3 or 4 days at Alta (all reasonably big days), I've seen people push, elbow, and stab (with a pole) slower traversers. Worse, it seemed to be the norm.

I have seen plenty of random rude behavior by both skiers and boarders throughout the country. However, the key word is "random". Most places, most people are pretty darn nice (if sometimes bit clueless or a shade "overenthusiastic"). The bottom line is that the repeating combo of behavior and smug entitlement I saw at Alta is unique in my experience. Both the "local" flavor and the "regular visitor" flavor.

Seeing people trying to give aid to someone down and who could not talk coherently being pushed and kicked off the traverse, juxtaposed a few minutes later with a guy on the lift cackling about how great Alta is because there are no "young punk" boarders present left a lasting impression. Not a good one. Especially as the thinly veiled age/political/cultural bias built into the anti-boarder rant was repeated ad nauseum on multiple lift rides per day.

I very well might go to Alta again for the snow and terrain and a quant lodge experience. But if I do, it'll be knowing I need to be chill and ignore a vibe that likely could not exist without Alta itself fostering it.

Hell, I wouldn't want to go back either. I guess there are some advantages to being a gaper: you don't get to see how bad the regulars' behavior is when they're in their element.

OTOH, I guess I already knew the kind of asshole you describe ski at Alta. I only see them lounging outside one of the coffee stands on a storm day in the dead zones between holidays and weekends, when one wonders how Alta can afford to run the lifts given how few skiers are there. They stare at me like I was a cow that wandered into a unicorn convention.
post #315 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post


Hmm, I don't know what to say. 


If the plantiffs (or you) really are feeling that their identity is so tied to their equipment and directly as "NOT a skier", that it feels similar in awkwardness in identity to them like dressing in drag would be to a gender-identified man.

sounds to me like someone needs a hug. 

That being said, I'm going to try snowboarding again this season...

I do need a hug, thank you biggrin.gif. And I do think these plaintiffs assign enough identity to "NOT a skier" to act on it. That's the entire point.

If you told me that skiing had been banned worldwide and all I could do was snowboard, I'd probably get my mountain fix on snowshoes. Skiing and snowboarding are neither the same thing nor interchangeable, although plenty of people are good at both. I don't need something else to suck at. Sucking at things repetitively requires passion.

Like I said, I don't know if this rises to the level of legal protection, but then why does any identity choice entitle protection? If some identity choice rises to that level maybe you can help me understand where it should stop?

Why is a religious identity more valued than an aesthetic identity under the law? Do you have a sound legal principle for that?
Now you're getting deep into it. There are rights to just about anything, and the only way to decide whose right gets 'right of way', as it were, is to prioritize them. Legal philosophy (jurisprudence) measures things like the fundamental-ness of a right. Things like religion are written right into the constitution. Other rights have been slotted into place as the idea of protected rights expanded into race, then to sex, and on and on, with rights like freedom of speech, freedom of contract, and all kinds of other crap being weighed against them along the way.

As for why religious identity might be more fundamental than aesthetic or lifestyle identity, I'm thinking it was because of the very common practice at the time of having a state sanctioned religion, with the resulting persecution and marginalization of anyone not a member of the chosen faith. And by "persecution" and "marginalization" I mean murder, torture, stripping someone of all their property, not recognizing their marriages, and stuff like that there, not saying they can't play with you.

So I'll ask: is it a more serious violation of human rights to banned from eating at a restaurant because you're black or to be banned from skiing at Alta because you use a snowboard?
post #316 of 326
The freedom of choice of equipment ranks lower in my mind than freedom from discrimination based on melatonin in one's skin.
post #317 of 326
That said, if snowboarders are allowed at Alta, why not extend the right to pet owners? I'd love to take my Pyrenees with me. Would I have to buy him a lift ticket? He'd go faster on the traverses than any snowboarder, and a lot of skiers too.
post #318 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post

That said, if snowboarders are allowed at Alta, why not extend the right to pet owners? I'd love to take my Pyrenees with me. Would I have to buy him a lift ticket? He'd go faster on the traverses than any snowboarder, and a lot of skiers too.
Sounds to me like the degree of delight a dog might show might not be welcome. smile.gif
post #319 of 326
That's probably why they don't welcome snowboarders either. They travel in packs and seem really excited and happy about what looks to the rest of as a big pile of crap.
post #320 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

...There is zero question that snowboarders are being discriminated against - that is not in question...
That's the ENTIRE question: is it a ban on certain persons, or is it a ban on certain equipment?

I see no credible argument for the claim that it's a ban on persons.
post #321 of 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by litterbug View Post

Now you're getting deep into it. There are rights to just about anything, and the only way to decide whose right gets 'right of way', as it were, is to prioritize them. Legal philosophy (jurisprudence) measures things like the fundamental-ness of a right. Things like religion are written right into the constitution. Other rights have been slotted into place as the idea of protected rights expanded into race, then to sex, and on and on, with rights like freedom of speech, freedom of contract, and all kinds of other crap being weighed against them along the way.

As for why religious identity might be more fundamental than aesthetic or lifestyle identity, I'm thinking it was because of the very common practice at the time of having a state sanctioned religion, with the resulting persecution and marginalization of anyone not a member of the chosen faith. And by "persecution" and "marginalization" I mean murder, torture, stripping someone of all their property, not recognizing their marriages, and stuff like that there, not saying they can't play with you.

So I'll ask: is it a more serious violation of human rights to banned from eating at a restaurant because you're black or to be banned from skiing at Alta because you use a snowboard?

The question at Alta is not particularly serious - I am making more of it to question assumption of secular aesthetic identities under the law - and certainly nothing at the level of race. But let's parse the religious aspect, and please know I want to be careful and respectful here.

Some religious identity I believe borders on race, i.e., born with it. Some is also assumed. The assumption religious of identity, which has nothing to do with protecting a historically persecuted class, is nonetheless protected?

In this country, in 2014, a person can assume the identity of a corporation, have the corporation assume a religious identity, and then obtain exemptions from federal law that are placed above societal value of gender. See: Hobby Lobby. So I can attend church once a year, or not at all, and determine that my female employees do not have covered access to birth control (which in and of itself is a highly paternalistic term for medical hormone regulation). We should not suggest that the absurd does not gain favor based on identities. If the Supreme Court can create identities in order to protect a paternalistic view of women, perhaps we should take aesthetic identities more seriously.

Unless we have a state sanctioned religion in this country, why do we give right of way to religious concerns, even above gender, but can restrict aesthetic concerns based purely on door policy? Don't the two align a bit more closely in our modern times? Or does it make us uncomfortable that seeing the absurdity of protecting an assumed aesthetic identity calls into question the prioritization of other assumed identities such as those based on deific faith?

We have a bunch of major religions in our world whose adherents believe in the same god (Christian, Muslim, Mormon, etc.), but they do not share certain use or practice tenets. They have different equipment, so to speak, for obtaining the required favor for external life from this same god and go to war against each other over those "blind spots". Nobody says "I use a Christian church". They say "I am a Christian".

Can we assume a secular identity that enables us to convert the word "use" to the word "am", or do we continue to devalue a secular life in the eyes of the law independent of its devotion?

I wonder if we used fMRI to scan the brains of religious vs. secular adherents to a practice for which they had met a threshold for devotion, would the same areas of the brain light up in response to inputs related to their practice? Sort of like how we are proving that animals share common emotions, despite our "dominion" over them? If the brain fires the same way, who gets to be prioritized and who can we continue to humiliate?
Edited by NayBreak - 8/18/14 at 10:42am
post #322 of 326

You have a team of paralegals and lawyers to research caselaw rather then base things on what things feel like.

They references the prior decisions which will spell out the criteria for a judgement and what "tests" it has to conform to be a particular legal definition and what could disqualify it. 

 

It's and overly simplistic version to say hobby lobby won because of they believe in religion.  But nobody except for lawyers has the time to go into caselaw and go through the criteria point-by-point.

post #323 of 326
NayBreak, I can't help you there. The law on religious freedom seems to get weirder and weirder. All I can say is that I'd suspect the vast majority of us, even those who aren't considered to belong to a religious group simply by virtue of being born of those who are, would like to think their spiritual beliefs are at least a little more than a lifestyle choice.

But although the way rights are prioritized is an important issue, I hope we won't get into a debate about whether spiritual beliefs and religious practices are lifestyle choices in the same way that a particular choice in recreational activity is.
post #324 of 326

Judge rejects snowboarders' suit 

 

Anyone surprised? 

 

Quote:
 

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed snowboarders’ claims that Alta Ski Resort banned them because of stereotypes that they are "undesirable people with obnoxious habits and characteristics."

Instead, U.S. District Judge Dee Benson said there are rational reasons for Alta to ban snowboarding, one of only three resorts to do so in the United States.

Benson wrote in a 30-page opinion that federal court was not the right arena for the snowboarders to argue they should be allowed on the Utah resort’s famed runs such as Baldy Chutes.

post #325 of 326
Thanks for the update, TC.
post #326 of 326
Locking this thread and moving discussion to a new thread started here 
 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Skiing News
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Snowboarders sue Alta Ski Area