Trending Topics: Alec Baldwin, GLAAD, and Senseless Violence - [a case of the summer]

So I tore apart a "celebrity" (generous title) in the first edition of Throwback Thursday, so why not discuss a super sensitive and somewhat controversial subject in the inaugural 2013 installment of Trending Topics?

TV Guide's website is reporting that Alec Baldwin apologized to GLAAD for the remarks he made on Twitter directed towards George Stark, the Daily Mail journalist who (seemingly erroneously) reported that Baldwin's wife was tweeting during James Gandolfini's funeral.  Here's what GLAAD had to say in response:

"Alec Baldwin is making it clear that the intent behind his tweets does not excuse his language, especially at a time when there were 11 incidents of violence against gay men in New York City just last month. As we all work to end such senseless acts of violence, allies like Baldwin are right to use these moments to reinforce support for the community and LGBT equality." - GLAAD's Vice President of Communications, Rich Ferraro

I certainly hope it goes without saying that bigotry of any sort is inexcusable.  And I want to be careful with how I phrase this, but does anybody else take issue with this response? 

Baldwin's original Twitter comment was, "I am gonna f%#@ you up. ... I'm gonna find you...you toxic little queen, and I'm gonna f——...you...up. ... I want all of my followers and beyond to straighten out this f---ing little bitch." Baldwin directed these threats to the reporter BY NAME.  I find it somewhat bothersome -- however understandable -- that somebody would even read that comment and be disturbed by the "queen" and "little bitch" portion.  I mean, the guy blatantly says he's going to FIND the reporter and mess him up.

And after making all of those comments, it's GLAAD that is owed the apology?  How so?  And for that matter, why would ANY organization go out and essentially say, "Well, that particular violent act wasn't directed at us, so all's good"? 

Again, bigotry is awful and I'm all for equal rights.  But an act of violence does not need to be a hate crime in order to qualify as being "senseless."