Furthermore, this question "What religion are you" violates the equal protection of the laws, that the same law protects everyone equally (and religion is generally subject to strict scrutiny), the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it violates the Fifth Amendment - that a person cannot be compelled to speak against themselves: Providing the wrong answer would be speech against one's self.

I think we have a misunderstanding. I never said anything about forcing people to do anything.

And if you're going to use the term, at least use it correctly.

Religious exemptions are unconstitutional under the free exercise clause. Perhaps a rephrasing of my original point makes this clearer:

Judge: "You're being tried for $foo. How do you plead?"
Defendant: "Not guilty by religious exemption"
Judge: "What religion is that?"

If this is indeed a constitutional question, then if the defendant provides the wrong answer, they're guilty. That is an unconstitutional abridgment of the free exercise of religion: It makes certain religious guilty.

Libel, slander, and false advertising can generally be reduced to fraud. It has to be false, and someone's reasonable belief of it has to have caused an injury (in the common law understanding).

Fire in a theater was a hypothetical in an old SCOTUS case. It's not illegal, and no one has ever been found guilty of it. Penn & Teller yell "Fire! Fire!" in a full theater every night. In the face of real flames. Still waiting for someone to get trampled.

Um, the religious exemption to vaccination is a law. Did you read TFA? It's talking about repealing said law. You should check your own reading comprehension, Anonymous Coward. (See, I can be condescending too.)

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.