Yes, all is not as it appeared. She seems immature and with a chip on her shoulder. Principled dissent is not the same as having an animus against authority and or not trying to do a job even if uncomfortable. I suspect some of the victim entitlement much of the black culture has been enslaved by is at work here.
Unless others were allowed to post things on the PC, what she could have done in this case was to ask if she could post the verses, and if refused, go thru channels to challenge that. Meanwhile, do her job over and above what is required, do the work of others, etc.
However, the judgment that "significant damage could be caused by forcing military employees to be exposed to a religious quotation" is so absurd as to place it in a Soviet Union context.
Excepts from first link.
In May of 2013, the appellant's duties included sitting at a desk and utilizing a computer to assist Marines experiencing issues with their Common Access Cards. The appellant printed three copies of the biblical quote "no weapon formed against me shall prosper" on paper in 28 point font or sm aller. The appellant then cut the quotes to size and taped one along the top of the computer tower, one above the computer monitor on the desk, and one above the in - box. The appellant testified that she is a Christian and that she posted the quotation in three places to represent the Christian trinity. At trial, the parties referred to these pieces of paper as "signs." The signs were large enough for those walking by her desk to read them.
On or about 20 May 2013, Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Alexander orde red the appellant to remove the signs. The appellant refused and the SSgt removed them herself. The next day, the SSgt saw the signs had been replaced and again ordered the appellant to remove them. When the signs had not been removed by the end of the day, SSgt Alexander again removed them herself.
In August of 2013, the appellant was on limited duty for a hip injury and wore a back brace and TENS unit during working hours. 3 The medical documentation (chit) included a handwritten note stating that "[w ]earing charlies & TENS unit 4 will be difficult, consider allowing her to not wear charlies." 5 The uniform of the day on Fridays for the appellant's command was the service " C " uniform and when the appellant arrived at work on a Friday in her camouflage u tility uniform, SSgt Morris ordered her to change into service " C " uniform.
The appellant refused, claiming her medical chit exempted her from the uniform requirement. After speaking with medical, SSgt Morris again ordered the appellant to change into th e service " C " uniform. The appellant again refused. SSgt Morris then brought the appellant to First Sergeant (1stSgt) Robinson who repeated the order. Again, the appellant refused. On 12 September 2013, 1stSgt Robinson ordered the appellant to report to the Pass and Identification building at the front gate on Sunday, 15 September 2013 , from 1600 until approximately 1930 to help distribute vehicle passes to family members of returning deployed service members. This was a duty the appellant had performed before. The appellant refused, showing 1stSgt Robinson a separate medical chit that she had been provided to treat a "stress reaction." This chit recommended that the appellant be exempted from standing watch and performing guard duty. 6 Additionally , on 03 September 2013, the appellant was prescribed a medication to help prevent the onset of migraine headaches.7
On 13 Sept 2013 , the appellant was ordered to report to Major (Maj) Flatley. When she did so, Maj Flatley ordered the appellant to repor t to Pass and Identification on 15 September 2103 to issue vehicle passes and ordered her to take the passes with her. The appellant told Maj Flatley that she would not comply with the order to report and refused to accept the passes. On 15 September 201 3, the appellant did not report as ordered. Additional facts necessary for the resolution of each assignment of error are developed below.
Mistake of Fact Instruction The appellant first argues that the military judge erred in failing to sua sponte ins truct the members on mistake of fact for the allegations that the appellant failed to go to her appointed place of duty as well as the allegations that she twice willfully disobeyed the order of a noncommissioned officer to don her service " C " uniform. W hether a jury was properly instructed is a question of law we review de novo . United States v. Payne , 73 M.J. 19 , 22 (C.A.A.F. 2014). http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2015/STERLING-201400150-UNPUB.PDF
Hell, if I’dve tried shit like, I would have been shot and put under a bamboo grove.