TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

TresHuevos wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Seems like the "security industry" is winning this one.

Working in the security industry myself, this whole thing really makes me scratch my head. I know of only one church (and it's a mega-church) in our city that has security and they even have PPOs for the Pastor. There's just not enough hours of work to be close to profitable.