So when it comes to smoking, they finally figured out that 2nd hand smoke hurts other non smokers so what did they do? Places now do not allow smoking inside. So the consequence Chad is talking about is that places will soon say, no vaccination, no eating at our restaurant. Not being able to eat out will be the consequence.
Ever been to Philly? Seriously; in the City, if you get more than 10% of your revenue from food, there is no smoking in the facility. So you walk outside, and there are invariably 5 people puffing away on the sidewalk in front of the facility. Which is fine, which is to say, there is a choice: I'm sitting at the bar, enjoying a Miller High-Life and if I want to smoke, I put a coaster over the bottle - so I don't get ruffied - and I walk out to the sidewalk and smoke. Maybe one of my friends will come with me, maybe not. Then I go back and finish my beer. That's not an unrealistic requirement.
And bear in mind I'm being somewhat theoretical here. The mechanism matters. If any one business wants to say "vaccine or your fired", fair enough, it's their business they can do that. AS LONG as I can go to OTHER business and be employed. Once the guv'mint gets involved, it reduces/eliminates the choice to "get vaccine" or "starve and lose my house". That's not a choice any more.
On a practical level, though, Bart is correct. There IS a difference between the practical and the theoretical. (FYI, I'm not as wishy-washy as I sound; I'm just trying to not write a novel here.)