Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:02:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 18:49:19 GMT -5
I don't think she had a double standard. Her standard was to side with the party expressing love and tolerance rather than the party espousing hate... I don't think its a legal distinction you can make, but I didn't find her reasoning fractured.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 23, 2015 18:52:37 GMT -5
It won't. Unlike the other case, this baker did offer to make the cake (in the shape of the bible). What she would not do is put whatever hateful writing (according to the baker it was hateful) on the cake but did offer the customer the icing and the icing bag to write his message on it himself. In the other case, when the baker found out what the cake was for, the baker refused to make the cake, let alone ice a message on it. In both cases, a cake is a cake. One offered to make the cake but declined to ice a message on it. The other baker simply refused to make the cake, period. Nor did that baker offer to let the gay couple put their own message on it. SO the other baker could have given the gay couple ingredients for a cake and said, "bake the damn cake yourself?" Nope! The other baker had to bake and ice the cake too just like the baker in the linked article above offered to do. If the gay couple wanted something written on the cake that is where the baker gets off by giving them the icing and the pastry bag. Two very different scenarios.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 23, 2015 18:55:25 GMT -5
I'm not surprised by the OP. When researching something else for P&M or current events I happened on a couple strong right leaning web-sites. There's been a push to hit up bakeries to find something they would reject so they could claim discrimination. To me there is a big difference between refusing to sell a product you have to someone based on their sexual orientation versus demanding a product be customized using hate speech. They weren't refused the cake. The bakery just refused to write what they wanted but allowed them ways to do it themselves. But that wasn't acceptable because the goal was a news story and uproar.
It's a simple demonstration of the black mark on a free society that is forcing business owners to serve customers in ways they consider morally repugnant. The only difference between the two cases is that your personal views of what constitutes "love" and "hate" have provided you with a convenient, irrational and totally indefensible excuse to avoid amending your opinion. Good riddance to this thread.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jan 23, 2015 18:55:45 GMT -5
Call me names all you want. You contrived an irrational basis to justify a double standard. You posted it for all to see in a "hate cake" thread where any reasonable person would expect criticism. I gave it to you. Nowhere did I say a business should or should not be forced to do anything. It doesn't matter what I think. The law is the law whether I (or you) like it or not. That is no double standard because I didn't set any standard at all. The law did that. I simply said I saw a difference in the two cases and "any reasonable person" who isn't intent on vilifying homosexuals would, too.
I didn't start with the name-calling so don't get all high and mighty with me. If you are in a bad mood and intent on immaturely picking at someone, feel free. But don't get all butthurt when it gets slung right back at you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:02:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 18:55:53 GMT -5
I don't think it would hold up because it's not against the law to refuse this guy's business. It was against the law for the Washington bakery to refuse to make the cake for the lesbian couple. The baker offered to make the bible-shaped cake. The baker would not ice the message. The baker did offer the customer the icing and pastry bag to write the message himself. The other baker offered the gay couple nothing, including not offering to make a cake. The two cases are completely dissimilar. Also, on the gay wedding cake there was no hate message request. They didn't want "straights should die" or anything like that on it. Hate speech is not protected as something you can force on others. You can spout verbal or printed hate all you want (and reap the consequences of doing so)... but you can't force someone else to do it. The "gay wedding" cake was a traditional wedding cake with a gay topper on it, and if I recall correctly, no words were even requested. An equivalent request from a gay/lesbian baker (to test the equality of treatment) would be to request a traditional wedding cake with a male & female topper on it. Period. End of request.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 23, 2015 18:59:03 GMT -5
... but I didn't find her reasoning fractured. The correctness of her reasoning is predicated on the correctness of her views on what constitutes "love" and "hate". I'll leave it that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:02:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 19:05:47 GMT -5
The difference between the two case is one was being asked to provide a service they do not provide, and one was being asked to provide a service they typically provide. No one can make you sell something you don't sell... But you can't deny to sell something you do sell to a person because you don't like something about that person like the color of their skin, their gender, their marital status, etc.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 23, 2015 19:09:53 GMT -5
Call me names all you want. You contrived an irrational basis to justify a double standard. You posted it for all to see in a "hate cake" thread where any reasonable person would expect criticism. I gave it to you. Nowhere did I say a business should or should not be forced to do anything. It doesn't matter what I think. The law is the law whether I (or you) like it or not. That is no double standard because I didn't set any standard at all. The law did that. I simply said I saw a difference in the two cases and "any reasonable person" who isn't intent on vilifying homosexuals would, too.
I didn't start with the name-calling so don't get all high and mighty with me. If you are in a bad mood and intent on immaturely picking at someone, feel free. But don't get all butthurt when it gets slung right back at you.
If you're saying that you wouldn't support the courts forcing a business to bake a "love" cake or that you would support the courts forcing a business to bake a "hate" cake, forgive my misconstruing your argument. It seemed to me as though your sole objective was to contrive an excuse as to why forced baking of "hate" cakes was antithetical to a free society while forced baking of "love" cakes somehow didn't fit the bill. It's good to know you'd revile a society where the rights of the business owner are proscribed by what some magistrate thinks ought to constitute "love" and "hate".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 23, 2015 19:18:31 GMT -5
The difference between the two case is one was being asked to provide a service they do not provide, and one was being asked to provide a service they typically provide. No one can make you sell something you don't sell... But you can't deny to sell something you do sell to a person because you don't like something about that person like the color of their skin, their gender, their marital status, etc. We should make a list of these. 3. May discriminate if service requested is not one "typically provided". Hence if a homosexual couple requests a special, atypical topper that the bakery doesn't have in stock, and the bakery would never under any circumstances produce a cake without one of their signature toppers, Baker Joe is A-OK to turn down the job. "Oh no. Not in that case. Wait. We..." You're going to have to think of an exception to the exception quick if you want to keep up the pace toward your foregone conclusion.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jan 23, 2015 19:41:59 GMT -5
Nowhere did I say a business should or should not be forced to do anything. It doesn't matter what I think. The law is the law whether I (or you) like it or not. That is no double standard because I didn't set any standard at all. The law did that. I simply said I saw a difference in the two cases and "any reasonable person" who isn't intent on vilifying homosexuals would, too.
I didn't start with the name-calling so don't get all high and mighty with me. If you are in a bad mood and intent on immaturely picking at someone, feel free. But don't get all butthurt when it gets slung right back at you.
If you're saying that you wouldn't support the courts forcing a business to bake a "love" cake or that you would support the courts forcing a business to bake a "hate" cake, forgive my misconstruing your argument. It seemed to me as though your sole objective was to contrive an excuse as to why forced baking of "hate" cakes was antithetical to a free society while forced baking of "love" cakes somehow didn't fit the bill. It's good to know you'd revile a society where the rights of the business owner are proscribed by what some magistrate thinks ought to constitute "love" and "hate". Well...you were wrong...as impossible as that might seem. My sole objective was to say I saw a difference in the two cases. I challenge you to find anything in my posts that states I felt a business owner should (or should not - for that matter) be forced to do anything. You won't because I didn't make any such statement. If you wish to explore that for the umpteenth time, I'd be glad to issue an opinion on that. I did not do so in this thread.
Perhaps you, as you admonish others on occasion, should actually read what I wrote before you start calling me names. I might debate whether one reason for an abortion is different than another, while all the time believing ALL abortions should be illegal. I'm not so single minded as to not be able to debate portions of an issue without making an all-encompassing statement as to whether or not I believe in the legality/morality of the entire issue.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jan 23, 2015 20:31:09 GMT -5
Call me names all you want. You contrived an irrational basis to justify a double standard. You posted it for all to see in a "hate cake" thread where any reasonable person would expect criticism. I gave it to you. I saw GEL give an opinion. I didn't see anything about what a bakery should do or not do. It wasn't a policy statement. JMO.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jan 23, 2015 20:34:44 GMT -5
I'm not surprised by the OP. When researching something else for P&M or current events I happened on a couple strong right leaning web-sites. There's been a push to hit up bakeries to find something they would reject so they could claim discrimination. To me there is a big difference between refusing to sell a product you have to someone based on their sexual orientation versus demanding a product be customized using hate speech. They weren't refused the cake. The bakery just refused to write what they wanted but allowed them ways to do it themselves. But that wasn't acceptable because the goal was a news story and uproar.
It's a simple demonstration of the black mark on a free society that is forcing business owners to serve customers in ways they consider morally repugnant. The only difference between the two cases is that your personal views of what constitutes "love" and "hate" have provided you with a convenient, irrational and totally indefensible excuse to avoid amending your opinion. Good riddance to this thread. Virgil, can you not tell the difference between GEL's posts and mine? Please note that was my first post in this thread.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 23, 2015 20:37:05 GMT -5
I see a big difference between these two cases. The man who wanted an anti-gay cake got a cake and was offered the necessary tools to put any writing on the cake he wished to have. The gay couple didn't get a cake at all because the owners of the bakery didn't want that cake going someplace they didn't want it to be. The difference, as I see it - one bakery made a cake and sold it to a buyer. The other bakery refused to make a cake at all, much less sell it to a buyer. Seems pretty simple to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:02:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 20:39:59 GMT -5
If the wedding cake baker had said we don't carry wedding toppers like that, you'll have to get your own topper... Here is your cake. No problem there. That is not discrimination.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 23, 2015 20:41:53 GMT -5
I see a big difference between these two cases. The man who wanted an anti-gay cake got a cake and was offered the necessary tools to put any writing on the cake he wished to have. The gay couple didn't get a cake at all because the owners of the bakery didn't want that cake going someplace they didn't want it to be. The difference, as I see it - one bakery made a cake and sold it to a buyer. The other bakery refused to make a cake at all, much less sell it to a buyer. Seems pretty simple to me. It is.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jan 23, 2015 20:44:58 GMT -5
The difference between the two case is one was being asked to provide a service they do not provide, and one was being asked to provide a service they typically provide. No one can make you sell something you don't sell... But you can't deny to sell something you do sell to a person because you don't like something about that person like the color of their skin, their gender, their marital status, etc. We should make a list of these. 3. May discriminate if service requested is not one "typically provided". Hence if a homosexual couple requests a special, atypical topper that the bakery doesn't have in stock, and the bakery would never under any circumstances produce a cake without one of their signature toppers, Baker Joe is A-OK to turn down the job. "Oh no. Not in that case. Wait. We..." You're going to have to think of an exception to the exception quick if you want to keep up the pace toward your foregone conclusion. I don't know what's going on, but this issue obviously makes you crazy enough you aren't thinking rationally.
I worked in a bakery. If one orders a wedding cake lets say or even a birthday cake and the customer wants to put some other top or thing on it(not stocked), typically they will purchase that separately. In RL Baker Joe wouldn't force a customer to have a signature topper generally. I remember requests to keep the decorations fairly plain on wedding cakes for those who had real flowers added on at the venue.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 3:31:12 GMT -5
I see a big difference between these two cases. The man who wanted an anti-gay cake got a cake and was offered the necessary tools to put any writing on the cake he wished to have. The gay couple didn't get a cake at all because the owners of the bakery didn't want that cake going someplace they didn't want it to be. The difference, as I see it - one bakery made a cake and sold it to a buyer. The other bakery refused to make a cake at all, much less sell it to a buyer. Seems pretty simple to me. Simple and illogical, I certainly agree. Refusing to decorate a wedding cake a specific way on moral grounds is a selective denial of service, and is the business owner discriminating on a moral basis. The only meaningful difference between refusing one service and refusing another exists in the minds of those desperate to contrive a distinction between the two. Even if the difference was relevant, the rest of your argument doesn't follow. If this thread was about a business owner being sued for refusing to write "Bob and Joe, Together Forever" on a wedding cake, the refrain in this thread would be "Hear hear for justice! If you won't serve the public, you don't deserve to be a business." We should make a list of these. 3. May discriminate if service requested is not one "typically provided". Hence if a homosexual couple requests a special, atypical topper that the bakery doesn't have in stock, and the bakery would never under any circumstances produce a cake without one of their signature toppers, Baker Joe is A-OK to turn down the job. "Oh no. Not in that case. Wait. We..." You're going to have to think of an exception to the exception quick if you want to keep up the pace toward your foregone conclusion. I don't know what's going on, but this issue obviously makes you crazy enough you aren't thinking rationally.
I worked in a bakery. If one orders a wedding cake lets say or even a birthday cake and the customer wants to put some other top or thing on it(not stocked), typically they will purchase that separately. In RL Baker Joe wouldn't force a customer to have a signature topper generally. I remember requests to keep the decorations fairly plain on wedding cakes for those who had real flowers added on at the venue. This is a hypothetical whose purpose is to show two things: - The consensus backers in this thread are so desperate to contrive a distinction between the Seattle bakery case and this case that inside of 40 posts we have no fewer that three baseless excuses for maintaining a double standard. We have the Tenn/mmhmm "frosting a cake is different from baking a cake" gambit, GEL's "being forced to make a cake with hateful words is worlds away from being forced to make a cake celebrating love" gambit (which apparently isn't GEL taking a position on who should and shouldn't be forced to bake cake), and oped's "one is a service they typically provide and other is simply a service they provide" gambit, completing the double standard trifecta.
- oped's excuse is as bad as the other two, not the least reason of why being the ease with which one can conceive ways of casting virtually any service as "atypical". If you don't like my example with the bakery, I'm sure you can concoct your own example that meshes with your understanding of how baking services work.
Finally, I submit to you that if you did know what was going on, and supposing you're among the few who will confront a paradox rather than contriving excuses, I wouldn't be the one you're calling irrational.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 24, 2015 3:31:17 GMT -5
Exactly right, on both counts. One baker decided to serve the public. The other decided to break the law.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 24, 2015 3:37:14 GMT -5
I would contest that based on the offer to provide the icing necessary for the customer to do it himself. It might not look quite as pretty, but anyone whose heart and head are filled with such ugliness likely isn't all that concerned with aesthetics anyway....
ETA: For the record, Virgil, you are correct that some of the other reasoning offered here is silly. However, your conclusion is still far off the mark.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 24, 2015 3:40:13 GMT -5
How in the heck anybody can twist something around to the point that a bakery selling a cake is doing the same thing as a bakery refusing to sell a cake is a mystery to me. I think I'd best take my boggled mind to bed on that one.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Jan 24, 2015 6:26:25 GMT -5
I don't believe you can force a business to be involved in hate speech. Hate speech/writing is outlawd in a number of municipalities and/or states. Not sure about Feds.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 24, 2015 6:41:27 GMT -5
SO the other baker could have given the gay couple ingredients for a cake and said, "bake the damn cake yourself?" Nope! The other baker had to bake and ice the cake too just like the baker in the linked article above offered to do. If the gay couple wanted something written on the cake that is where the baker gets off by giving them the icing and the pastry bag. Two very different scenarios. Except the business offers a service of baking a cake and decorating it...if the baker decorates one person's cake, he/she has to decorate every cake. Whether the baker agrees with what's decorated on the cake or not doesn't matter. The baker is offering a service to the public and must therefore provide service to everyone - that is the exact outcome of the previous case.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 24, 2015 6:46:43 GMT -5
I would contest that based on the offer to provide the icing necessary for the customer to do it himself. It might not look quite as pretty, but anyone whose heart and head are filled with such ugliness likely isn't all that concerned with aesthetics anyway....
ETA: For the record, Virgil, you are correct that some of the other reasoning offered here is silly. However, your conclusion is still far off the mark.
And, again, I contest then that the first baker could have offered the cake ingredients and told the gay couple to bake their own cake - it may not have looked or tasted as nice, but they would have gotten their cake. The decorating is a service which is part of the business...unless we now allow businesses to cherry-pick which services they offer to various clients? Which would make the inital bakery case null.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,722
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Jan 24, 2015 7:53:50 GMT -5
These people are probably targeting bakeries that they KNOW will refuse whatever so they can sue and get their 15 minutes of fame. It's the fuckin' American way.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 8:13:19 GMT -5
I would contest that based on the offer to provide the icing necessary for the customer to do it himself. It might not look quite as pretty, but anyone whose heart and head are filled with such ugliness likely isn't all that concerned with aesthetics anyway....
ETA: For the record, Virgil, you are correct that some of the other reasoning offered here is silly. However, your conclusion is still far off the mark.
And, again, I contest then that the first baker could have offered the cake ingredients and told the gay couple to bake their own cake - it may not have looked or tasted as nice, but they would have gotten their cake. The decorating is a service which is part of the business...unless we now allow businesses to cherry-pick which services they offer to various clients? Which would make the inital bakery case null. You are the light of reason burning in the darkness, sir.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 24, 2015 8:24:08 GMT -5
How in the heck anybody can twist something around to the point that a bakery selling a cake* is doing the same thing as a bakery refusing to sell a cake* is a mystery to me. I think I'd best take my boggled mind to bed on that one. *"cake" may refer to a proto-cake at an intermediate stage of production; please consult our service guide for details on which customer beliefs qualify for our full service policy
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2015 8:24:23 GMT -5
Nope! The other baker had to bake and ice the cake too just like the baker in the linked article above offered to do. If the gay couple wanted something written on the cake that is where the baker gets off by giving them the icing and the pastry bag. Two very different scenarios. Except the business offers a service of baking a cake and decorating it...if the baker decorates one person's cake, he/she has to decorate every cake. Whether the baker agrees with what's decorated on the cake or not doesn't matter. The baker is offering a service to the public and must therefore provide service to everyone - that is the exact outcome of the previous case. You and Virgil don't get it. That's the way you two see it. So be it. But this guy's case is going no where. He did not make a comparable case against the baker.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 18:02:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 8:44:41 GMT -5
The second baker did not say, we will not decorate a cake like that FOR YOU... They said, we do not decorate cakes like that FOR ANYONE.... There was NO discrimination....
Alternately, the first baker said, yes, we make cakes like that for OTHER PEOPLE... we just will not make one FOR YOU... Discrimination....
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 24, 2015 10:10:15 GMT -5
As consumers we have the right to pick and chose whom we do business with.
So, As a business owner I am required by law to do business with everyone that I do not agree with gender, religion beliefs or other differences by law.
It would really be cool to be able to sue people that choose not to do business with me because they don't agree with my beliefs, principles or convictions.
Should it not be a two way street?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 24, 2015 10:20:26 GMT -5
And, again, I contest then that the first baker could have offered the cake ingredients and told the gay couple to bake their own cake - it may not have looked or tasted as nice, but they would have gotten their cake. The decorating is a service which is part of the business...unless we now allow businesses to cherry-pick which services they offer to various clients? Which would make the inital bakery case null. You are the light of reason burning in the darkness, sir. Absolute nonsense, and beneath your level of logic.
One cannot be legally compelled to act in a manner contrary to law. Writing what is effectively hate speech on a cake is such a matter. The original baker refused to make a cake FOR THAT COUPLE. ONLY. That is discrimination. The second offered to bake and frost the cake, and also offered the customer the pastry bag and icing to write whatever they wanted on the cake. That is not in any way discriminatory.
If faced with the prospect of either having a frivolous lawsuit laughed out of court, or the very real prospect of being sued (and losing) for having written hate speech on a cake, it is a very simple choice.
|
|