Under what provision of the Constitution does “licensing of a profession” overrule the First Amendment?

Anyone has the right to his or her beliefs, philosophies, religion, etc. But people do not have a right to a license to practice medicine, psychotherapy, pharmacy — hell, apparently not even interior design. The state can put whatever requirements on the license it wants to. That’s the deal. Don’t like it? Find another state.

Relatedly, my personal curmudgeonly take on this “conscience clause” thing is that conscience clauses are horseshit. If you want the state to hand you a license to practice a profession, then you’d better open your doors to anyone in the state. Don’t want to treat the gays? Then don’t practice medicine. Go do something else. It’s a free country; you can go hole up in the woods somewhere and write antigay screeds to the New York Times. Don’t want to give The Pill to unmarried women? Then don’t be a pharmacist. Be a smarmy youth pastor with too much hair “product” somewhere.

I mean, every time you get a conscientious objector / deserter case these last few years, I hear “Well if he didn’t want to be asked to kill people he shouldn’t’ve joined the damn Army!” Very well then. Can’t we apply that level of “personal responsibility” thinking to people who go to medical school?

Facetiously to #2, that can easily be cured by passing a law prohibiting fertility physicians from leaving the state or disbanding their practices.

That is 90% of the problem in California. 90% of the politicians would rather cow-tow to be uninvolved, and let society crumble, than take a politically risky position. Woe be the politician who does offer word of reason. They are ostracized.