I think fetishization is a problem, because it makes queer relationships seem inherently sexual, which isn’t true. This also fuels parents refusing to talk to kids about LGBTQ+ relationships, because it’s tied up with adult-oriented sexualization. (This is also why people were arguing about leather gear at Pride making the event unfriendly toward minors. It’s one thing to just be sporting leather, but an entirely other thing to bring the “fetish personality” - like leather puppies - around kids.)
Because of institutionalized homophobia and history, there’s a lot of past media relegated to “adult-only status” simply for showing queer relationships.
Queerbaiting is annoying, but – since it’s vague – it leaves characters’ relationships up for interpretation. I can usually deal with it. The one time it becomes a huge problem is when it’s obviously done to pander to queer folk, get their support, and take positions away from definite queer representation. (Like Ariana Grande getting to sing at Pride since she might be queer, which takes the opportunity away from definite LGBTQ+ artists. Or companies that say they’re LGBT+ friendly, but fund anti-LGBTQ+ organizations or politicians.)
Queer-coded bad guys are kind of problematic. It’s hard to accept yourself as queer if all your representation is negative or made into a mean-spirited joke.
So, I usually just roll my eyes with these, but queerbaiting that takes opportunities away from out LGBTQ+ people makes me think twice.