Crossposting from another thread.
They have no right to use whether or not you've done x or y before to assess whether you can object upon grounds of conscience.
This is just my take but:
Go Religious.
Following the advice of Ron Unz..
"When in Trouble, Head for Auschwitz"
I would suggest a letter.
I would suggest a letter taking note of of all the questions (only taking note) and then expressing your fears for the employer that you work for.
You will cite the example of Franz Stangl, the commandant of Sobibor and Treblinka, who was managerial level in the greatest crime the world has ever seen.
Stangl faced a journey of incrementalism from overseeing the euthanasia of extremely disabled patients at the TiergartenStrasse facility to overseeing the execution of millions of men, women and children.
The first step? His employers forced him to accept his Furher, Hitler, as his ultimate authority over and above his Catholic faith and his God.
He was reportedly very torn by the insistence that he do that from his employer. Reportedly the violence this did to his conscience paved the way for his accepting worse and worse orders.
He faced, at that time, all manner of questions at work that were designed to catch him out as not consistent in his faith. It was insidious.
Your fear is for your employer.
These questions could be construed by the uncharitable or those looking for news copy or legal fees as similarly unfair practices undermining to the conscience of employees in their care.
In the wake of the Shoah, the greatest crime of the last century, there is precious little forgiveness for employers who are seen = with hindsight = to have been forcing those under them to act against their conscience.
Especially those who used invasive questioning and demands for ideological consistency a la an inquisition or the pressures those under the Nazis faced as the price for continued employment.
IBM and Hugo Boss may have been big enough to weather the adverse publicity of their tangential involvement in the Third Reich, but to this day they bear the stigma of their association.
Smaller firms were not so lucky.
Right now governments are breaking Nuremberg laws and, when challenged, engaging in sophistry to evade the charge.
They distinguish between a state mandating medical procedures upon people that do not want them (this is a mild expression of what happened) and the current situation, which they claim is somehow different because it is 'public health policy'. The Nazis had something they termed a public health policy as well.
This sophistry and contradictory messaging is an indication that small, mid-sized and even big companies are on shaky ground.
The huge Pharma companies have already been excused liability. The CEOs have gone on record that there will be long term unforeseen adverse effects from these vaccines. The buck of liability will have to stop somewhere.
The higher authorities who are initiating this give no indication that they can be trusted either to explain their advice nor help those who will have trustingly followed their diktats.
The idea of a secular employer acting as an inquisitor (no matter how well meaning the motivation) into an employee's faith is a legal time bomb for that employer.
In the long term *whatever happens during this pandemic* it is likely that employers will face censure should they insist on this path.
It is already obvious that they will be afforded scant protections from those above them who are already adopting a contradictory and evasive stance on these matters.
You wish to reach an accommodation with your employer in a spirit of reasonableness and good will and hope that you can.
You trust that the employer understands if you do not partake in answering a questionnaire that amounts to a confession/inquisition into the consistency of your conscience.
You wish to flag this up now ahead of time as you can see the dangers it leaves the organisation open to: in terms of litigation or pubicity after the fact.
Hopefully the company and employees can continue to thrive in a mutually understanding environment.
My two cents.
