In many cases, the person bringing her in IS in a position to ‘shop around’ because taking rape victims to hospitals is part of that person’s job.

I guess we’ll see.

I refer to myself an a monoculturalist as a joke sometimes. I want the culture to be inclusive and accepting of surface level difference, but core values and unity are essentual. The myth/idea/legend/value of the melting pot served us well for a long time.

I think we have to be prepared to fight about what the core values are, and it seems to me that religious tolerance has been one. That’s part of why it’s difficult to resist as effectively as we probably could.

It seems like it ought to be easier is more secular countries of western Europe, but they seem to be having a worse time.

When you have religions that are based upon the assumption that it is the duty of believers to impose their belief systems on others (Islam is certainly one of those), the notion that the ‘free exercise of religion’ takes place in a vacuum is naive at best. The right to freedom of expression does not provide the expressor with the right to impose upon another individuals right to express themself, hence you cannot argue that your right to speak (for instance) entitles you to drown out the speech of another.

I sympathize with Catholic hospitals that don’t wish to provide emergency contraception, but ultimately if their receive state sanction, they must be subject to state regulation. Libertarians have a stronger case here as they (for the most part) would eschew any state sanction, and hence the control that goes with it. A rape victim brought into a hospital is not in any position to ‘shop around’ for a provider to meet her needs, and hence the state has made provisions of such services a basic requirement for a license. We might regret this (in which case a clear remedy is available), but given the use of a state sanction by the hospital, it is clearly bound to the state’s regulation.

In the case we are discussing, if there were no limits or licenses for cabs in the airport in question, then the cabbies behavior (offensive though it might be) would be something we could tolerate. There is an artificially imposed limit on cabs (something that the cabbie benefits from, in the form of higher fares and assured business)however, and as long as it exists, those who benefit from it cannot have it both ways.

There are inevitable tensions in any society with multiple cultures and a generally high level of diversity. I have always been a strong proponent of the ‘melting pot’ approach because (among other things) it tends to reduce the underlying tensions over time. Our (foolish and ultimately self-destructive) indulgence of identity politics is what is to blame here…

It is difficult to embrace the cultures of others when they reject yours.

I understand the impulse of relgious fundementalists — be they Christian, Amish, Jewish, Islamic or whatever — to reject modern values. There are certainly aspect about those values of which I am not proud.

Confrontations like these — the schools in London, the jitneys in Minnesota — make me think that holding off the theocratic state legislatively and even militarily may not be enough.

> Is it a secular society or is it a free society?

This is a secular society, by law.

Here is a section from a “Vehicles for Hire” municipal code in Vancouver:

—-
http://www.westvancouver.ca/upload/pcdocsdocuments//3JKG01!.pdf

Part 12 Standards of Service

12.1 Every holder of a Licence to operate a Taxicab shall provide a 24-hour service to all persons, and if approved by the Motor Carrier Commission to do so, shall include a Dual Taxicab service to persons who have a disability or disabilities, and any person who may use a wheelchair, scooter, or other required or necessary Mobility Aid.

12.2 Every holder of a Licence to operate a Dual Taxicab service shall, upon telephone or other notification, and after the person has identified themselves as one who requires the service because of a handicap or who uses a wheelchair, scooter or other Mobility Aid, give priority of access to a Dual Taxicab to such customers, and must ensure that Dual Taxicab’s are available to primarily serve
such customers’ on demand transportation requirements at all times that a Vehicle For Hire service is provided to the public, including, but not limited to, high volume periods, and such special situations as, but not limited to, transit strikes.

12.3 The holder of a Licence to provide a Vehicle For Hire service, and which includes a Dual Taxicab service, shall insure that all requests for service, from a person or persons who have a disability or disabilities, and any person who may use a wheelchair, scooter, or other required or necessary Mobility Aid, are satisfied in a timely and efficient manner and that a sufficient number of vehicles are available at all times to provide such service. For the purpose of this Bylaw, timely and efficient shall mean the average time of response to customers requesting a Taxicab.
—–
The occurrence of the term “All Persons” should be enough to explain what is expected of Taxi cab service providers. Taxis are licensed in every city, so the words might change from here to there.

Anyway, for the record, radical Islam freaks me out. I don’t know how you draw a clear line about religious tolerance to fundamentally intolerant people. On the other hand, to require that things be completely secular, even in the private sector, reflects an intolerance too.

If it’s a publicly controlled industry, then I think that Minnosota needs to explain the terms under which drivers can get licenses, and those terms might include the willingness to drive any person with legal cargo. If a driver refuses, then whatever happens when you refuse a fare, happens to that driver no matter why he did. If in good Muslim conscience the driver can’t accept those terms, he finds another line of work.

Is it a secular society or is it a free society?

The first amendment does more than prohibit the establishment of religion, it also prohibits the gov’t from making laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Freedom might mean that maybe private providers of a service can set the terms of the service, and customers can choose to accept those terms or go elsewhere, unless we can think of a reason that the gov’t must intervene.

—-
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2004/05/24/story4.html
More than 50 percent of all rides in the city start or end at Mineta San Jose and individual rides are far more lucrative than those elsewhere in the city. San Jose’s taxi fares are among the highest in the nation, with a one-way fare from the airport to downtown costing $20 and more.

While some drivers operate taxis owned by the cab company, 400 or so taxi drivers in San Jose own and operate their vehicles and pay a feel to be affiliated with a taxi company.

Under the taxi system plan, the city will divvy up an additional 105 airport permits — for a total of 300 — to as many as 12 San Jose-licensed taxi companies using a complicated formula that involves the size of the company’s fleet and how many pickups the company makes outside the airport. That number will be reviewed annually.
—–

While driving a cab is already regulated by city/county governments, airports get additional regulation.