Who's land is this anyway?

Constitutional question du jour... how much of a right does the land owner have in setting the rules? Land ownership is tantamount to the American dream. As much as the right to bear arms, or possibly more. Here's the gist: the city of Salt Lake (herein STL) sold a portion of the main drag of STL called Main Street to the scary Mormon Church a few years back. They broadcast services on the strip and do all the other things that indicate they own the drag. But here's the rub: we're talking about the street. The street. And the sidewalk.

Far be it of NB to think a couple walking down the street have more rights than the person, etc who owns said street. Then again, this argument is over the public right of way. Ultimately we aren't talking about fisting, or sexual acts, or anything covered by the Lawrence V Texas decision of 2003. Murder or other criminal acts aren't what we are talking about either. We are talking about two boys or two girls, or one of each holding hands and or kissing. If one of these couplings is ok in the public right of way, they all should be, regardless of who owns the land. While this does put us against the Mormon Church (again), it isn't by default. We aren't talking about the church doorway (or beyond), where the church could say whatever it wanted on the topic of how much is too much. Sidewalks and streets are more or less free and should be that way now and forever. Sorry property owners if you disagree. Anyone kissing in the street or sidewalk that isn't committing a crime (eg: obstructing the flow of traffic), shouldn't be charged with a crime. And that's where we stand on this matter.