"[S]ocial conservatives long used arguments from traditional morality to oppose recognizing same-sex relationships. 180 But these arguments about lesbians and gay men now sound illegitimate—like “bigotry.” In response, advocates have changed the secular rationale for their position in ways that give increasingly uninhibited expression to its religious logic. Advocates now emphasize different justifications for excluding same-sex couples from marriage —for example, that marriage is about biological procreation or that preserving “traditional marriage” protects religious liberty. At the same time, in anticipation of the possibility of defeat, they argue for exemptions from laws that recognize same-sex marriage. In so doing, they shift from speaking as a majority enforcing customary morality to speaking as a minority seeking exemptions based on religious identity. As in the case of healthcare refusals, these claims for religious exemption have spread and expanded through the concept of complicity. Many states that allow same-sex couples to marry have enacted legislation making clear that religious denominations and clergy have no obligation to solemnize a same-sex marriage. These actors can be analogized to the doctors and nurses covered by the healthcare refusal laws who object to performing abortions or sterilizations. But as with healthcare refusals, advocates draw on concepts of complicity to seek exemptions for those who object to facilitating or sanctioning another’s sinful conduct. Ryan Anderson describes the expanding sequence of these claims: “Some will conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists.”"