While I'm loathe to defend Alec Baldwin, even if he said what he was accused of saying, it wasn't "homophobic".
"Homophobic" would have been something like, "Oh, my God! Run! There's a c*ks**king f*g approaching! Run for your lives! Godzirra! Godzirra!"

Meanwhile, while we're expected to allow the warping of a perfectly good word to promote the stereotype of homosexuals as being effeminate (to wit: "gay"), "redneck" is continued to be used as a welcome slur by one and all w/o the least bit of outrage anywhere outside of my apartment. "Dumbf**king redneck" is still perfectly acceptable. (and God forbid you should name your football team "redskins"; it might offend some aborigines whose permanent tan is the color of red Oklahoma clay.)

And while I'd probably be taken to court for referring to Obama as "The Democrats boy", any white male you encounter is fair game, regardless of age, to be called "white boy".

And don't tell any homosexual jokes (even if they're about Barney Frank, a walking, talking, homosexual joke), but feel free to tell dumb blonde jokes.

But, blondes can always die their hair, and join in twisting perfectly useful words like "chairman" into tongue twisters such as "chairperson". Or dropping "actress" and "hostess" altogether. And God forbid you should refer to "flight attendants" as "stewards" and "stewardesses".

My point (you knew I'd get around to one, have faith) is that it doesn't matter that the slur Baldwin used was directed at the (probably inaccurately) presumed sexual appetite of his victim. Had he called the guy a "baby-raping bastard" it would have been equally offensive (and probably equally inaccurate). But, no, they don't make the issue that Baldwin has a propensity for curse-laced verbal abuse, which it should be; they make the issue that this particular curse-laced verbal abuse violated the requirement that we all must embrace and accept homosexuality.