Pride (the festival) will have to be “adults only” from now on. There are a variety of reasons for that, and most have little to do with the controversy over registered sex offenders serving as volunteers.

Several weeks ago the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that basically makes businesses, including groups like Pride, responsible for taking measures to prevent foreseeable crimes occurring not only on their premises, but adjacent areas as well.

Insurers now are going to be especially careful when underwriting events like the Pride festival, especially if there is any hint that someone could be injured by criminal behavior.

The reality is, regardless of the presence of sex offenders, when persons under the age of consent are on the premises of a venue geared for adult activity, it is foreseeable that they may hook up with someone 18 or older. Don’t be surprised if a minor’s parents sue Pride for negligence, and they insist that the lesbian district attorney press charges for child molestation. You may recall my column describing how a judge sued a 19-year-old male and his parents because the teen had consensual sex with the judge’s 17-year-old son.

To some, the festival is a celebration of sexuality, and if they want to be sexual that’s their right. And others see the festival as a celebration of the diversity in our community, which includes youth and families. I agree, but, legally, that’s what the youth/family Pride festival is about, where SpongeBob and Barney can kiss and hug.

Unfortunately, as long as the age of consent laws in California start at 18, minors should not be on the premises of what is a venue for adult activity, such as drinking beer and obtaining sexually-oriented materials. And that’s what a jury could conclude. The multimillion-dollar verdict could bankrupt Pride, and even if Pride wins, the attorney fees would deplete its reserves.

Making the festival an adults-only affair is lawful under the California Civil Rights Act, which does allow businesses to restrict minors’ access to adult venues. This also should help answer the issue of whether RSOs can serve as volunteers. If children are not present at the affair, then Pride can’t incur liability.

That doesn’t end the issue. Pride still has to screen volunteers. Federal and California law treat volunteers the same as employees. I’ve argued here that groups catering to children and adults must screen their volunteers for criminal records, and not just sex offenses.

The law of negligent hiring basically does not bode well for any group that hires or accepts volunteers who have criminal records.

A case in point: James Hartline has made an issue of registered sex offenders serving as volunteers with Pride. But the San Diego News Notes reports that Hartline is head of the “Hillcrest Mission.” The Catholic Church is taking a large risk having him work with children and adults. As reported in the News Notes, Hartline has served time in prison for drug offenses. Given his background with drugs, sexual compulsivity, his own child molestation and his AIDS diagnosis, the church lawyers will have their hands full if someone ever alleges an emotional or physical injury by Hartline.

What about “forgiveness” and “giving people a second chance”? Ask Cardinal Mahoney how that flies before juries…

The irony of all this debate over registered sex offenders working with Pride is that the debate was fueled by James Hartline, who is a conservative Catholic, I think. Regardless of his faith, the reality is that there has never been – in the last four decades – a child molestation complaint filed against anyone working with Pride, or The Center, or the Hillcrest Youth Center, or the Metropolitan Community Church.

But the legal newspapers carry on a daily basis the progress of the thousands of child sex abuse claims. As I reported here, California allowed victims of sex abuse over the last 50 years to bring suits against their abusers or groups responsible for employing or supervising the abusers.

Lawyers advertised all over. Of the claims filed, virtually all of them have been against Catholic priests and the church. The church has about 800 suits alone in California, and the suits are settling for over $2 million a piece.

If Hartline is truly concerned about the welfare of children and the presence of adults who either commit child molestation or passively aid and abet it by standing by and doing nothing, then why pick on the gay groups when it seems like he should be holding accountable those in his own church?