It’s quite difficult to imagine a majority vote to inflict harm on the minority voter as democracy—a meaningful say in the decisions that affect the participants—in a substantive way.
I should add: the *enforcement* of a decision to commit harm is precisely what makes the situation you’ve described undemocratic.
Democracy is a process of building consensus for shared decisions. Not everyone will always agree with every decision, and that’s fine—that’s life.
But if X people vote to commit harm against Y people, in opposition to Y’s vote, then we’re not really taking about democracy in the sense of *people ruling themselves.*