I agree entirely with everything you said. However, it appeares to me that the issue at hand is not covered by the stated propositions. The key words are "every time someone." When a community member's act threatens a polarization of the community, the representative --- whose job it is to serve the community as a whole --- may be compelled to (i) clarify the position of the administration, and (ii) take a feasible unifying action. I do believe that, when guided by purely such motives, this is a responsible behavior.
I personally think that an act of a prominent religious leader that may entice religious violence falls into the category of actions that compells a balancing act on the part of administration. This is not just an "every time" occurrence.
The devil is, of course, in the detail. Under the current climate of political correctness, we do see a lot of what you seem to be referring to. Even minute statements of some community member cause the leaders to respond. If you suggest that this is not appropriate, I agree with you completely.
In contrast, I view the pastor's action as falling into the category of actions that are, although not hate crimes in themselves, are likely to entice some followers to violence and bigotry. It's not unlike giving a child a lit match, walking away, and then saying that you did not start a fire. Such action cannot be left without mention.
To sum up: whether an action is extraordinary is a question of judgement. I do not claim to "hold the absolute truth" on the matter, and will respect your judgement whether it similar to or differs from mine.
Thank you for a thoughtful post, and have a restful holiday weekend.