If your workplace is demanding everyone get vaccinated, but a person's preference is to not get the covid vaccine, does that violate her human rights?

If your workplace is demanding everyone get vaccinated, but a person's preference is to not get the covid vaccine, does that violate her human rights?

Whether it's discriminatory or not is a matter of facts, not strict logic. So there's no fallacy, just a claim.

My boss is Indigenous, and she has good reason, both historical and present day, to mistrust government mandates. However, she admits that there is no evidence that Indigenous people have been either unfairly targeted (as, for instance, clinical trial subjects) or had vaccines withheld in this province. The only argument she has is preference, and her preference is based on the fact that she thinks with her nursing background she can live her life with sufficient infection control measures that she won't get Covid, and therefore shouldn't have to expose herself to the risks of the vaccine, however small. 

We could question these premises. For instance, what are the "good" historical and present-day reasons are there for mistrusting government mandates? And is it really true that her 'infection control measures' will prevent her from getting COVID/passing it to someone else? What about the supposed 'risks' of the vaccine, and whether they're outweighed by the benefits?

There's no fallacy as there's no developed argument, but there are questionable claims attached to the boss's decision.

Generally a person's rights end at the rights of another, with some rights taking priority over others when there's a conflict. Generally, the safety of the public takes precedence over individual rights and anti discrimination laws aim to ensure certain characteristics aren't used as a determining factor in treating someone differently from someone else in the same context or that accommodations are made if measures need to be adjusted for accessibility.

Unvaccinated people endanger the general public, especially people who are unable to get vaccinated and as such are entirely reliant on other people's compliance with safety measures for their safety and well-being. As long as vaccines are made accessible with everyone to reasonably comply with mandates and accommodations are made where they're needed, requiring vaccination shouldn't be a discrimination issue.

Finding an official legal breakdown on that would be ideal but that should about cover the gist of it.

No.

I see no fallacy; in fact, I see no argument.  

What I see is a statement of preference and an indication of a concern over potential negative results from vaccination.  It seems to be a situation in which the individual gives certain factors greater or less weight than others do.  

It seems (from the information provided) that the individual's focus is more self-centred than community-centred.  She seems to think she will be OK without vaccine and that she might be harmed by a vaccine.  While protecting one's self is certainly part of the motivation for current anti-COVID measures, a great deal of the motivation for many folks relates to protecting others, too.

However, all of the above boils down to value judgements and not lapses of logic ... just different folks viewing the situation differently.  It's sort of like an acquaintance of my who always buys silver cars (because he considers that they show dirt less) and, if silver were not available, would never buy a white car (because he considers them harder to see on roads, making them a safety hazard).

By its very terms, you are asking a legal question and not a question in logic.