Let me get this straight, the distinction you're making here - it's not free choice that you disagree with per se, your argument is that there is free choice but it comes with consequences?
If there are consequences (losing the ability to earn a living, being mandated by the government to continue existing job, right to travel is blocked, healthcare benefits stopped etc) then it's no longer a free choice, it's state sponsored coercion. A coerced decision is not free will - get it? So my point remains, your name compared to your argument here makes you a walking contradiction of hypocrisy.
The right to informed medical consent is one of the pillars of human rights, medical ethics and anti-discrimination laws. It is enshrined in both national and international law and making exceptions or changes to those fundamental principles is a slippery slope.
A question for you - seriously - what does the long term safety data for the vaccines show? Should enshrined human rights & medical choice laws be changed if you can't answer that question? Hint: if you believe the answer is yes, you're out ya damn mind. Those who answer yes are the dangers to society.
