Just added some context.
Your context is irrelevant to the point that they had a right to do something, even if it was for a bad cause.
You have done exactly the same thing as saying you are against "freedom of speech" if it is speech with which you disagree, and against "freedom of religion" if it is a religion with which you disagree.
You are arguing that someone's right should be contingent upon your moral approval of their goals or purpose, and I, and the natural law philosophers, argue that rights are inherent, and they are not suspended because some people don't like the reason why other people want to exercise them.