Introduction

Nebraska is 1 of 26 states that did not protect LGBT people from employment discrimination prior to Bostock vs. Clayton County. This article examines debates in Nebraska about LGBT employment nondiscrimination as a window into how citizenship is defined in relation to sexuality and gender identity.

Methods

We performed qualitative analyses on (1) the 2018 Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey of 902 respondents who shared their opinions on employment nondiscrimination legislation for LGBT individuals in close- and open-ended questions and (2) transcripts of the 2017 Nebraska state legislature debate of a bill that would have added sexual orientation and gender identity to the classes protected from employment discrimination.

Results

We find overlap in the primary frames employed by advocates and opponents. Both frame sexuality and gender as irrelevant to employment, and both rely on fairness and equality as rationales. Both sides also use a morality frame; however, those opposing argue that passage may result in discrimination based on religion.

Conclusions

While civil rights are often assumed to be conferred on all people designated as citizens in a society, this paper reveals that LGBT people’s inclusion in the state remains contested. Both sides articulate that the state is not neutral but is expected to be an enforcer of values through policies implicating gender and sexuality.

Policy Implications

Because LGBT nondiscrimination policies tap into broader debates over freedom, morality, and citizenship, these will likely continue to be contested in the years following the Supreme Court’s ruling that protects against employment discrimination.

中文翻译：

---

LGBT就业非歧视：辩论性与公民身份

介绍

内布拉斯加州是26个州中的1个，在博斯托克（Bostock）对克莱顿县（Clayton County）之前，并未保护LGBT人群免受就业歧视。本文考察了内布拉斯加州有关LGBT就业不受歧视的辩论，这是了解如何定义与性和性别认同相关的公民身份的窗口。

方法

我们对（1）2018年内布拉斯加州年度社会指标调查进行了定性分析，共有902名受访者在封闭式和开放式问题中分享了他们对LGBT个人就业非歧视性立法的看法，以及（2）2017年内布拉斯加州州立法机构辩论的笔录一项法案，该法案应在受就业歧视保护的阶层中增加性取向和性别认同。

结果

我们发现倡导者和反对者所采用的主要框架存在重叠。性别和性别都与就业无关，都以公平和平等为理由。双方还采用了道德框架；但是，那些反对派则认为，传教可能会导致基于宗教的歧视。

结论

虽然通常假定公民权利授予社会中所有被指定为公民的人，但本文显示，LGBT人民在国家中的包容性仍存在争议。双方都明确指出，国家不是中立的，而是希望通过牵涉性别和性行为的政策来推动价值观的执行。

政策含义

由于LGBT非歧视政策引发了关于自由，道德和公民权的更广泛辩论，因此在最高法院防止就业歧视的裁决后的数年中，这些辩论可能会继续受到争议。