Employers decide that about literally all the characteristics in the hiring process and all the conditions of continued employment. You may don't think it's ok that they get to fire you if you violate the "acceptable use" conditions of their information security policy either, but that doesn't actually matter. Since abiding by the acceptable use terms is (almost always) a condition of continued employment they can and will.

Literally all characteristics? I think there are some which are protected by law and generally considered not cool to discriminate on. I'm just asking which ones are ok to discriminate on since apparently submission to medical procedures is one of the good ones.

I wonder how people would feel if an employer required other medical treatments, or the inverse: if an employee had a medical procedure the employer doesn't like.

Also, I'd like to clarify that your comparing a company requiring a medical procedure to be performed on all employees bodies to an acceptable use policy telling employees not to use Facebook on their company machine, right?

Vaccines have been required for public schools (with government compelled attendance) for decades. This is nothing new.

For years employers discriminated against people for reasons that are now illegal and considered uncool at best. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is morally right or just.

If you want to get on the leftist anti-wage-slavery train you are welcome to join us, but I suspect that the number of antivaxx folks who are willing to actually make that leap is low.

This is a bad faith argument. Nowhere did I say, or even imply, you cannot earn a living. You can choose to work for someone who will not require it, such as a company who is remote-first, if this is a problem for you.

There is no bad faith argument from me. I'm simply asking what characteristics of an employee are acceptable to use to determine if they should be fired. What medical procedures can they choose to have?