I see both of your points. To @Bonvivant’s point, if a company makes a point of being LGBT advocates, it seems counterintuitive/hypocritical to manufacture in a country where it’s illegal. I see that being the same argument many are making in the PGA 2022 thread who seem to equate financial partnership (with Trump’s course) with the advocacy of their partner’s views. If I follow that line of logic, I can see where @Bonvivant’s case that it’s hypocritical that RL can withdraw sponsorship from a guy who makes a slur, but continue in financial partnership with a country where it’s illegal.
But, to @iacas’s point, of course RL has the right to withdraw their partnership from someone who makes a slur hostile to their social ideals.
Ultimately I support a company’s right to sponsor/partner with anyone they see as an athlete who they feel best suits them...which is not JT in their eyes.
13 million Americans have gotten the vaccine. Some states are starting to get to teachers and the elderly.
It's generally unwise to say things about "false info" when you're talking about your anecdotal and/or local experience(s).