Court rules Marine’s religious rights not violated

[rug]

By Dianna Cahn
Stars and Stripes
Published: August 11, 2016

WASHINGTON — The highest U.S. military court has upheld the bad conduct discharge of a Marine whose case had climbed to the top of the legal system over the question of whether her religious freedom had been violated.

In a 4-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces upheld lower court determinations that Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling’s religious rights were not violated when a superior ordered her to take down signs containing a biblical passage that she’d posted around her desk at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The judges upheld lower court conclusions that Sterling’s refusal, in the context of a contentious relationship with her bosses and the combative nature of the passage, was less an exercise of religion than an act of insubordination.

Sterling was ordered demoted and discharged in a 2014 court-martial and the case has been climbing through the courts since, with defenders of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act arguing on Sterling’s behalf.

The court found Sterling had failed to establish a RFRA case and determined that her superior’s orders to remove the signs was “lawful.”

http://www.stripes.com/court-rules-marine-s-religious-rights-not-violated-1.423552

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2015SepTerm/150510And160223.pdf

[rurallib]

1. maybe she should join the Salvation Army?

[rug]

2. Come Join Our Army.

[VMA131Marine]

3. When you read all the other stuff she did

it becomes clear that the discharge was warranted. She refused to wear the correct uniform after being ordered to by two SNCO's and refused to be at her assigned place of duty after being ordered by an O-4 to do so. The religious aspect to the signs was only first raised during the court martial. Unfortunately she will now find out that life outside the Marines will not be easy with a Bad Conduct Discharge on her record.

[MADem]

4. When the boss tells you to do something, do it.

You don't have a "right" to decorate the office with passages of your choosing, and religion has nothing to do with it. It ain't your house, it's your work center.



Insubordination!

[awoke_in_2003]

5. Good

I look forward to the day when all religions will be given the respect they deserve- which is none.

[struggle4progress]

6. ... Appellant did not inform the person who ordered her to remove the signs

that they had had any religious significance to Appellant, the words in context could easily be seen as combative in tone, and the record reflects that their religious connotation was neither revealed nor raised until mid-trial ...

[rug]

7. Yeah, the Court concluded there was no prima facie RFRA violation.

Appellant also testified that the signs were “just purely personal” and served as “a mental reminder to (her) when (she came) to work .... (because she did not) know why these people (were) picking on [her].” Appellant stated that she believed her situation with her command was unfair because she was being picked on, including by SSgt Alexander. The Government reasserted that the signs were ordered to be taken down because they were distracting.

[Angry Dragon]

8. kick