If a judge can lawfully say "What's your religion?" "Catholic" "That's allowed, I find you innocent, you're free to go"
Then the judge can could say "That's prohibited. Prison time."

Since when did not letting the government discriminate on the basis of one's religion become fascist?

And SCOTUS has held that laws permitting inquiries as to a person's religion for the basis of determining guilt violates that.

Further, equal protection of the laws is the Fourteenth Amendment, and declining to answer such questions is the Fifth Amendment.

Article VI further prohibits religious tests for holding office. This theme is very well established.

The Constitution says "No law". Religious exemption sounds like a law regarding religion.

A Protestant would be mortified if a known Catholic judge asked them their religion. This is the same thing. Courts are prohibited from inquiries and special treatment based on a person's religion. If a judge can ask a question that can help them, then there's an answer that can hurt them. That's an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws.

You really shouldn't need any law. Religious exemptions are unconstitutional... under the free exercise clause. Think about that for a moment. Why would that be the case? Well, consider how this goes down in court:

Defendant: I don't want to get this vaccination/serve this person/cut my hair/I want to smoke this cactus
Judge: Why?
Defendant: I have a religious reason
Judge: What is your religion, and what does it say?
Defendant: Objection! The First Amendment and the equal protection of the laws prohibits you from asking this, and the Fifth Amendment doesn't require I answer.

From the article you linked to, comparative advantage is related to marginal cost, which is a comparison of two goods. The law of comparative advantage says if the costs of production for the two goods are different, it will be advantageous for the two parties to specialize and trade, even if one party produces both goods at a lower absolute cost (money, labor, time, natural resources, any way you want to measure it).

Suppose the north produces very cheap water and electricity. Further suppose the southwest produces slightly more costly, but still fairly cheap electricity, and very costly water. Even though the southwest is disadvantaged in both markets, it still benefits both parties if the southwest produces only electricity and the north produces only water.

I don't have a problem with segregated schools, or gender or ethnic associations, per se.

I have a problem with doing it on the taxpayer dime. (Though I can't speak for Slashdot as a whole, but that seems to be the leaning.)

That's the problem. That's sexism.

You're providing services to individuals based on the traits stereotypically associated with their gender, whether or not the individual actually has any of those stereotypical qualities... that's sexism.

No one's gonna use this for donating to panhandlers (just to bump into them at the store buying more alcohol...)

The real use for this will be tip jars, purchasing products, mobile micropayments.

You think business is gonna see this technology and just sit on their hands?

Charge too high and that's "gouging"
Charge too low and that's "dumping"
Charge the same as everyone else and that's "collusion"

Is there anything that's not antitrust?

Charging per GB is OK.
Charging per month, unlimited is OK.
Charging per GB except certain kinds of services... not OK?

Antitrust is completely irrelevant here.

I like this idea. I'm thinking, though, once you've already programmed a rocket to be able to land in a particular place, getting it to land without tipping over isn't that much extra work, compared to the cost of building out an entire silo with spinning platform.

And I guess they wanted to stick with an ocean landing for some reason.

But mobile phone developer isn't "forced" to use Apple products?

I run an Internet radio stream myself. I'm fully aware of T-Mobile's terms of the service, and they're not bad. But even if it was...

The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.

There's no barrier to entry, it doesn't make it harder to get an Internet connection or start a new service.
(Centralized distributers like YouTube, Google Play, Twitch.tv -- they do. They control their platform, they own the audience that you're trying to get exposed to, and if you want to access that audience, you're subject to their rules through and through.)

The only thing T-Mobile doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. What's not to like?

You're talking to someone who runs a 24/7 Internet radio stream. Network, routing, copyright, artists, library, website, the whole shebang. It's really not that hard to sign on with their program. But even if it was...

The thing about their plan is it's a voluntary part of their billing. They're not throttling anyone, they're not prioritizing traffic or dropping packets based on the source or destination.

The only thing they're doing is footing the bill for shuttling data. Paying for someone else's bills is always welcome in my book.

Not just that, but there's little evidence to suggest proper Internet access would even get more expensive. (At least for me, access to just one website is not "Internet access")

In fact, since this is a change in demand (not a change in quantity demanded), economics suggests the price should go down.

The only way it would go up is if it lures more people into buying Internet data plans... wouldn't that also be good?