Your thinking is *exactly* the same argument used by racists to put up "no colored allowed" and "whites only" signs in front of stores and restaurants. That is all that happened from then to now, moving away from economically and socially isolating minorities to economically and socially isolating "sexual deviants" as you call them. ...
What you are demonstrating is why we unfortunately need to protect people, to deal with those like you masquerading their prejudicial actions as "inalienable rights."
So your point being what, that if a "bad" person uses or defends a human liberty to their own ends, then that liberty must be terrible principle and cannot be valid? If so then aren't all "rights" invalid because the "bad" people are entitled to and use free speech, freedom of association, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion, right to an attorney, equal protection of the laws?
I realize there are those who view human rights as merely a "privilege", who would burn down a village of rights if a demon (e.g. a racist) could be found to benefit from a single shed. But when you speak of how racists use their natural right of contract to 'do bad' also recall that yours is the same argument advanced by Nazi's, Communists, and Islamists to justify their repression of human rights. They also noted that their moral demons (Jews, Non-Communists, Non-Islamists) used human rights (such as that of speech, association, contract, religion) for "their immoral purposes" and that, therefore, the idea of liberty was not a valid or supportable concept.
The character of "who" uses a universal human right does not make that human right illegitimate. And the reason we given the benefit of universal protection of those rights, including to the Devil himself, is not for their safety but for our own. We don't burn down the village of protective rights structures because we find a Jew, racist, infidel, Communist, or Christian (or any other of the demonized) in a rights shed. AND if these demonized happens to be in the right using their liberty, out of respect for the legitimacy of natural law and justice, we must find for the demon.
So when you concluded to the poster that: "we unfortunately need to protect people, to deal with those like you masquerading their prejudicial actions as "inalienable rights."" you were on the right track going in the wrong direction. The people needing protected is all of us, in particular protection from those who believe our inalienable and universalist rights are nothing more than "masquerading for prejudicial actions" and therefore are illegitimate impediments to "getting the devil".