You both may be saying the same thing. Businesses can absolutely require employees to do certain things in order to work there (buy safety gear, work variable hours, etc.). They’re conditions of employment and the prospective employee knows them before they agree to the employment terms.
However, employers can’t make any conditions of employment that violate a person’s civil, legal or constitutional rights, so the question should be “Does requiring the jab violate any of these universal human rights?” A new law may not be required, just an enforcement of the existing laws that protect or guarantee a person’s bodily integrity.
Agree totally.
A critical component of that is the employers acceptance that no matter what the prospective employee waives or agrees to, a attorney can/will come along and abrogate the agreement/acquiescence.
Congress is supposed to make no laws impairing contracts but nearly everything they’ve done with regards the citizenry, their livelihoods and their health/welfare since the 30’s does exactly that...
The argument that “if we don’t do X, Y or Z; grandma, the less fortunate, the uninformed will starve or sicken and die in the streets has led us to this point. And there is an argument to be made that SOME of the actions were right, for a given period of time. But we need to make regular a habit of putting sunsetting clauses in most legislation so it doesn’t end up enslaving us to some past attempt at societal virtue.