What I got from your post, whether you intended it or not, is that a low-er skilled worker, say a cashier who worked with the public would see more of an impact from this vs. a higher skilled remote worker, like someone in the accounting department -- who for the same "reasons" as he cashier did not want to get the vaccine.

Doesn't seem fair at all.

If the cashier has to get it, so does the remote worker. Fair is fair.

The cashier who CAN'T get the vaccine for a valid medical reason should have reasonable accommodations made for them if possible - but that may not be nearly as likely as for the remote accountant. Doesn't seem fair either, but maybe there's a way to mitigate that with disability or unemployment.

But, again, and difference in the rules based on job roles does not sound reasonable at all to me, and in fact actually works to discriminate against the lower skilled workers.

'Reasonable accommodations' for any objections to vaccination is discriminatory for different classes of workers (outside of narrow legitimate medical reasons.)