You are looking at this situation only from the side of employer rights. In many instances I probably would agree with you. However, when that employer requires you to do something that has a real potential for life changing effects, then I fall on the side of the employee every time.
That is unless those life changing situations were well known when you took the job in the first place. I.E. climbing trees with no safety measures to reduce serious injuries, or climbing 100+ foot towers with safety measures in place and you are afraid of heights.
To me, it makes no difference if the government or an employer is requiring someone to take an experimental drug with known issues for you to be gainfully employed at the job you were previously employed at.
Forced by whom? The government? That would be an outrage -- and my view on that is perfectly consistent with what I've already posted.
I actually faced a situation last year where I was forced to accept a variation of this "vaccine mandate" from a CLIENT. It wasn't a vaccine mandate, but a COVID testing requirement. I absolutely refused to accept the terms of this requirement even though it involved something far less invasive and dangerous than a vaccine.
The good news is that I recognized this as nothing more than a stupid, ineffective measure that the client was imposing at the behest of its lawyers to cover their asses and protect the company from a lawsuit.
The better news is that the client recognized how stupid and ineffective their COVID rules were. Not only did they see it my way, but they agreed to my proposal to eliminate the need for any COVID testing by completing the project on MY premises and under MY terms -- which also protected THEM from any stupid lawsuits.
To me, it makes no difference if the government or an employer is requiring someone to take an experimental drug with known issues for you to be gainfully employed at the job you were previously employed at.
I don't think this contradicts what the judge has said in this case. What it DOES mean is that the vaccine mandate is a matter of contract law regarding the employer-employee relationship, or maybe even state labor law or health codes -- but not a constitutional matter.
Personally, I think most employers are absolutely crazy to impose a vaccine mandate of ANY kind on their employees -- even if it involves fully approved, "safe" vaccines. Why would I, as an employer, ever want to take on potential liability for myself by getting involved in mandating that sort of thing? A health care facility is one of the rare exceptions to this, though -- because the employer is involved in treating illness and injuries as a matter of course, and must always be mindful of legal exposure from their patients in addition to their staff.
It is well known if you work in health care vaccines and other screening and treatments are mandated. Have been for years. This is. it a surprise. The only surprise is how long it took the first couple places to mandate it. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but it is well known by all working in health care
In many states, an employer can fire you for almost ANY reason. Exceptions are laws which specifically protect a certain status. Vaccination (or lack thereof) is not a protected category under the law. Therefor, an employer has the legal right to fire you if you refuse vaccination. In Arizona, you can be fired for getting a tattoo, having hair the wrong length, etc.
No one has a right to a particular job. If the conditions are agreeable to you, work and collect your pay, If not, quit.
I think it is stupid to require young people to get vaccinated for COVID. But no one is forced to work there. Comparing it to death camps was stupid.