What fallacy is this?

A reporter asked the producer (happened a week ago):

R: Do you think it's right to hire those vulnerable people to your scripted homeless-reality?

P: They signed it with their hand, they have legal right to participate or not. Would you take this right from them, because they are homeless or what?

.

So what fallacy the producer made? On moral question answering by refeering on law, and also attacking back by questioning the case morallity assuming the reporter questioning the law (or constitution) too.

I don't see any fallacies here. The reporter asked a question and the producer gave an answer. Although one can argue that the producer did not actually answer the question, I would argue that there was a clearly-implied "yes" in their answer.

As for the moral to legal, in this case, the two are closely connected. Taking rights away from someone based on the fact that they are homeless is a moral issue. Had the producer simply said, "they have a legal right to participate, do they not?" then it would a more clear appeal to the law . But I feel the producer did a good job connecting the moral issue with the legal.

The reporter asked if it's morally right to hire them, the producer answered that it's their right to participate and also his right to use them. That's rights to ought fallacy .

Actually, he's not really answering the question so he's avoiding the issue. But he also continues with implying that asking such a question is expresses the desire to change their rights and exclude them just because they are homeless, which is strawman fallacy . And it is strawman because the question was "is it right?" not "should they have the right?". 
I also suspect that the producer is trying to conflate the different meanings of the word "right" = morally correct with "right"=permission which constitutes the equivocation fallacy.