Hate is a fact of human existence, it will always exist in our society, in all societies.
The question here is whether this was hate for a single man or hate for a group. I'm leaning toward hate for a man, accompanied by the language to express it.
As an educational point btw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(unit)
Even the word itself is not as inherently magical as many make out. Most don't think these things through anymore, but its the hatred for a group of people that the word represents that makes it vile. Take away that hatred from the user and its just a brusiing nastygram that shouldn't be used but is apropos of not much.
Some of the deleted comments in this thread stray too far into politics and whatnot, but raise good points of proportionality. There are actual hate crimes committed every day in this country, let alone around the world. There are political parties who make homophobia a plank, there are extremist preachers who will tell you that every American soldier who dies does so because of gay people, there are countries where they will cut off your head if you're discovered to be gay.
And then there is pissed off Rajon Rondo using a playground slur against a man he doesn't like. Its a bad look and he shouldn't have done it, but people acting like its the end of the world quite frankly haven't lived in that world much. If Rondo went after a gay guy in a park we would be having a different conversation. If he posted a dismissive tweet on Gay Pride Day it would be more indicative of hate for a group. But Rondo got into an argument with a man he has issues with and dropped a couple of bombs in it. Let he or she who has never said something they shouldn't have in an argument stand up.