What's new
By:

Gonna be riding at Alta next year bros!

Bronco70 said:
I haven't been to Alta since the last time I went skiing (literally decades ago) so I can't profess any expertise, but by my recollection, Snowbird is pretty similar.
Click to expand...

It's been a few since I've skied Alta, but I think overall Alta is steeper.
 
Lol. I was watching the video on Ksl, and they interviewed my brother and his girlfriend at snowbird asking them about the lawsuit. Apparently my brother is involved with the lawsuit.
 
b_line said:
No, it would just be like at any other ski resort. No uphill traffic, only downhill.
Click to expand...

Says who? Their whole "argument" is that because of the ski resort's arrangement with the USFS, that private decisions such as ski/snowboard -- or uphill/downhill -- don't apply.
 
bordelais7 said:
Says who? Their whole "argument" is that because of the ski resort's arrangement with the USFS, that private decisions such as ski/snowboard -- or uphill/downhill -- don't apply.
Click to expand...

It appears that the lawsuit is based on an equal protection claim (from the article I read). You may argue that because it is federal land, equal protection rights apply.

However, in order to defeat a equal protection claim for a non-protected class (snowboarders--arguably you are really just excluding equipment and not people anyway), the plaintiff would have to show that the exclusion does not meet a rational basis level of scrutiny or review. Rational basis review simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason. No way this lawsuit exceeds unless they can successfully argue that the real reason for the rule is to exclude a protected class (e.g., 90% of black people that want to use the mountain snowboard and the rule is in place to exclude them).
 
JAZZGASM said:
It appears that the lawsuit is based on an equal protection claim (from the article I read). You may argue that because it is federal land, equal protection rights apply.

However, in order to defeat a equal protection claim for a non-protected class (snowboarders--arguably you are really just excluding equipment and not people anyway), the plaintiff would have to show that the exclusion does not meet a rational basis level of scrutiny or review. Rational basis review simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason. No way this lawsuit exceeds unless they can successfully argue that the real reason for the rule is to exclude a protected class (e.g., 90% of black people that want to use the mountain snowboard and the rule is in place to exclude them).
Click to expand...

Snowboarders using the Americans With Disabilities Act argument. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top