Put differently, when asked, you are not obliged to answer any questions about whether or not you are vaccinated. For instance, if I ask you whether you had a flu shot last year, you do not have to answer me.
What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is legally mandatory. Then we'd have a different discussion.
Finally, how many private businesses are willing to risk a court case over refusal of service because a patron isn't willing to divulge medical information? Not to mention potential violations of discrimination laws.
Reserving service isn't straightforward. Especially not when it comes to sharing private medical information e.g. when someone wasn't vaccinated because of an autoimmune disease.
Your exact medical condition is no concern of that business, and one shouldn't be forced to give up that information lest risking to be barred from service.
It's for this reason why many businesses have terms and conditions pointing out to customers the role of personal responsibility, and asking them to waive their right to legal action. Moreover, let's not forget the existence of business insurance that protects from calamities.
If vaccination can't be mandated through public action because there's not enough support, then that comes with consequences for the general public. One of them would be that the relationship between owner and patron gets burdened by a new liability. The question then is whether or not the harm of publicly mandated vaccination outstrips the harm caused by that liability in everyday life.
> What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is legally mandatory. Then we'd have a different discussion.
Everything you mention is the "different discussion" in that statement.
My comment was a rebuke against what is mentioned in the grandparent comment:
> but will be individually implemented by each private org
Private organisations - restaurants, shops, music venues, malls, theatres,... - may try and ask for personal medical information, but you are not obliged to divulge anything to them.
Private organisations barring entrance because you are unwilling to disclose personal medical information: I'm wondering how well that would hold up in a legal case.
For instance, you have an autoimmune disease and you can't get vaccinated. You present at a restaurant. You are asked "are you vaccinated?". If you answer the question truthfully with "no" but you don't want to disclose your medical condition, you likely risk getting barred anyway. So, now you are in a position where you need to make a trade off: divulge your medical condition - which isn't any of the restaurant's business - in hopes of gaining access (no guarantee) or keep silent.
See where this is going? The problem isn't people who are against vaccination, it's the potential of creating legal hurdles for people who can't get vaccinated due to a medical condition which may bar them from participating in society. That's just not okay.
Moreover, if private venues are afraid of being the butt of an infection cluster (e.g. as a result of contact tracing) then they ought to insure themselves. That would be not much different from insuring oneself from other liabilities such as a patron tripping and breaking their arm in theme park. This is also the very reason why many venues have warnings and provide waivers to patrons giving up the right to take legal action against the venue.
Lastly, the article you quote specifically focusses on choosing to not get vaccinated based on philosophical or religious arguments within a public context: getting educated at a public school. Which is a different category of legal challenges. Moreover, the conclusion of the article is that tort law is only a second best approach to publicly mandated vaccination within that category.