Yeah, it certainly does. "Sincerely held principles" is not defined in the bill nor is it a legal term of art, as far as I know. The upshot is that its meaning is vague, and it will be fleshed out after the fact by judicial rulings when, inevitably, a counselor invokes it.
Judges have a gigantic toolkit to determine the meaning of a term like this: plain meaning of the words, looking at legislative intent, "constitutional avoidance" (preference for determining the meaning of an ambiguous law that may impede constitutional rights in a way that doesn't do so), an so on.
One interesting thing to chew on: when courts determine whether someone has a "sincerely held religious belief" they give them the benefit of the doubt, even if there is evidence that the alleged belief is not in fact sincerely held. This is because the Supreme Court has said that probing the sincerity of religious belief potentially violates the Free Exercise Clause. Logically, there is no reason why judges should give equal deference to a person's "sincerely held principle" since it's a non-religious term. Be interesting to see if and how that shakes out here.
