As a few others have pointed out, this was about multiple infractions and the whole "religious liberty" thing wasn't even brought up until late into the trial as a "hail mary" by the defense.
More specifically, here's why the whole thing is bullshit ...
The so-called verses were actually paraphrases of a bible passage.
They were not marked as a bible passage.
This was not a personal but a shared work-space. Several others who fulfilled the same duty on different shifts used the same desk.
Her co-workers that shared that space complained because the "messages" made them uncomfortable. IOW, they did want other people to think they were the ones responsible for the seemingly aggressive messages present on the workstation.
The idiot in question chose not only to ignore the order to remove the "messages", she never bothered to point out to anyone that they were (paraphrased) bible passages.
The idiot in question could have filed for a religious exemption which may or may not have granted her permission to keep the messages. However it is doubtful that it would have been permitted because, as previously noted, this was a shared work-space and not hers to "personalize".
She (and her defense) didn't even bother to try claiming her rights were being trampled until after she was brought up on charges and in court and even then wasn't until near the end of the court marshal after all her other insubordinate actions had been more or less dealt with.
Basically, as the court noted, this was a disingenuous defense on a matter that the defendant herself couldn't even be bothered to follow the standard procedure for. Had she done so, that would have at the very least given her defense on this charge the appearance of being legitimate. Instead this was a sad! attempt to knock down the number of charges she was guilty of and save her insubordinate ass.
But here we are once again, having to spin and lie to prop up the persecuted christian narrative.
