Organization, Opportunity, and the Shifting Politics of Employment Discrimination

Abstract

Despite the major breakthrough for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) activists on marriage equality, the fight against employment discrimination remains elusive. Whether one is protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity depends on where one lives and is contingent on a patchwork of state and local policies. In this article, we investigate the adoption of state nondiscrimination laws that are inclusive of sexual orientation between 1980 and 2009. Findings from our event history analysis of policy adoption contribute to the study of social movements and LGBT politics in three ways. First, and consistent with social movement theory, we find countermovement opposition to gay rights as well as pro-LGBT political opportunities to be critical. Second, we find organization and opportunity to fluctuate in importance over time, underscoring the need for historically informed analyses that seriously consider when key actors should matter for social movement outcomes. Third, we produce new state-level estimates of public opinion of nondiscrimination laws. We show that while very high levels of public support are common for states that adopt nondiscrimination laws, they are not enough on their own, particularly in the face of opposition.

Gerakan Politik Lokal Waria dalam Perjuangan Hak Bekerja

“…Gerakan ini hampir sama dengan gerakan feminisme dan LGBT di Italia di mana adanya fase perjuangan dalam komunitas LGBT dan feminisme yang selama ini terkotak-kotak berupaya untuk memobilisasi diri 16 . Gerakan feminisme dan LGBT di Italia menolak pemberlakuan regulasi yang diskriminatif yang dianggap tidak memberikan perlindungan bagi orientasi seksual dan identitas gender yang berbeda 17 .…”

The Rise of the Nones across the United States, 1973 to 2018: State-Level Trends of Religious Affiliation and Participation in the General Social Survey

“…To date, MRP has been primarily applied by political scientists to estimate subnational public opinion on issues such as same-sex marriage (Lax and Phillips 2009), immigration (Butz and Kehrberg 2016), U.S. Supreme Court candidates (Kastellec et al 2015), and the European Union (Hanretty et al 2018). In comparison, its adoption in sociology has been slower, although the tide appears to be turning, with recent studies using MRP to estimate state-level income mobility (Bloome 2015), state-level attitudes to LGBT employment rights (Dixon, Kane, and DiGrazia 2017), and state-level support for criminal sentencing policies (Duxbury 2021). A few studies have also applied MRP to estimate the size of small religious groups at the national level, such as the proportion of Jews in the United States and Canada (Magidin de Kramer et al 2018;Tighe et al 2010) and the proportion of Muslims, Hindus, and Jews in the United Kingdom (Claassen and Traunmüller 2020).…”

LGBT Russians and Political Environment for Activism

“…This article aims to add to this literature by employing the political opportunity structure approach and analyzing the impact of state policies on the emergence and development of LGBT activism in the country. By doing that, it complements the studies utilizing the political opportunity structure approach to analyze LGBT activism in various (albeit predominantly Western) countries (Andersen, 2005;Ayoub, 2013;Day & Weatherby, 2016;Dixon et al, 2017;Van Dyke & Cress, 2006).…”