TexasCHLforum.com

I'm aware of more than one security company that "employs" individuals for church security through their company and they "work" for the security company at their church. The individuals are not paid by the security company but the security company is paid by the churches to cover insurance and other costs and expenses. Some charge a lot more than others.

It's a great niche market to go after since the state currently makes it illegal to do so without being licensed. This bill goes a long way to remedy that.

Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.

ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.

It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?

AJSully421 wrote:So, when it says that you cannot give the appearance of a "personal protection officer", don't most body guards wear dark colored suits with ties?

Because, guess what I wear to church each Sunday...

I think that in this case it could be said that the PPO is trying to give the appearance of regular folks. So if the PPO is standing in a room full of people dressed in dark suits & ties, it's he who is trying to look like the non-PPOs & not the room full of people trying to look like the PPO.

Meanwhile, in the State of Alabama...

"Alabama Senate votes to allow church to form police dept."

http://m.wbrc.com/myfoxal/db_345960/con ... d=Ui6u8Lh7

bblhd672 wrote:

ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.

It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?

The government got the authority, when the security industry's lobby pushed them to outlaw anyone not specially "trained and licensed" to perform security duties. There was no exemption for churches, because at the time, church security, was not a major issue. Once churches wanted to form their own security teams, the security industry lobbyists, put the kaibash on it, to protect their money. When churches fell under attack, it was obvious that if they could require them to hire certified security people, there could be money made.
Since most churches, especially smaller churches, can't afford to hire security companies, they have either have to rely on the goodness of others, to not attack them, or do without. This will exempt churches from that requirement, as it should have been in the beginning.

Jusme wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.

It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?

The government got the authority, when the security industry's lobby pushed them to outlaw anyone not specially "trained and licensed" to perform security duties. There was no exemption for churches, because at the time, church security, was not a major issue. Once churches wanted to form their own security teams, the security industry lobbyists, put the kaibash on it, to protect their money. When churches fell under attack, it was obvious that if they could require them to hire certified security people, there could be money made.
Since most churches, especially smaller churches, can't afford to hire security companies, they have either have to rely on the goodness of others, to not attack them, or do without. This will exempt churches from that requirement, as it should have been in the beginning.

I understand where the government believes it got the authority, but is it constitutional to restrict what activities a religious organization performs on its own property?

See also:
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 1#p1141005

I know HB421 has made it to Calendars, hoping it makes it out. What are ya'll hearing?

bblhd672 wrote: I understand where the government believes it got the authority, but is it constitutional to restrict what activities a religious organization performs on its own property?

No more or less than restricting what activities an individual performs on their property.