Lots of bloggers have been posting about the discrepancy of what they "other" religion is allowed to do and cases like this one.

Is characterizing sexual acts as an abomination more, less or equally insulting as compared to saying that eating shellfish (see, Leviticus 11:9-12) is an abomination?

I think Cardiff is not in England, but in Wales.

Oh...I thought there was some sort of grammar perversion going on.

Is characterizing sexual acts as an abomination more, less or equally insulting as compared to saying that eating shellfish (see, Leviticus 11:9-12) is an abomination?

Except that the Text does not use the word "abomination" (or toevah, in Hebrew) with respect to shellfish. In fact, I'm not sure whether it's used in the original Text except with respect to two subjects: the worship of idols, and male homosexual intercourse.

I can't speak to what the Bible means to Christians, but I do know that many non-Jews misunderstand what it means to Jews. From the day the Law was received -- more than 1,000 before Christianity -- Jews taught that only 7 Biblical laws apply to "descendants of Noah" (i.e. all of humanity):the prohibitions against murder, sexual immorality, idol worship, eating a limb severed from a live animal, theft and blasphemy, and the commandment to establish courts of justice. The dietary laws, the laws of the Sabbath, etc. were meant only for the descendants of Jacob. That's what makes it both annoying and amusing when ignorami take potshots at Leviticus in order to "prove" that one church or another should ordain homosexuals (or some years earlier, ordain women) or marry same sex couples.

These types of laws are common all through europe, and in Canada as well. England has a hate speech code called the "race relations act" that basically makes ANY public criticism of any race/ethnicity, etc. prosecutable. Many countries make it a crime to dispute that the holocaust happened. In Canada, the laws are especially orwellian. See: the JP Rushton case. In that case, a college professor was prosecuted for espousing his theory: the R-K hypotheses, that (in a nutshell) says that Asians are more evolved than Whites, and Whites moreso than Blacks. Espousing this theory was deemed enough to get him indicted. IIRC, he was found not guilty. Interestingly, in his case, it was pointed out that even if he could prove that his theory was correct (which I am not saying it is, of course), that this would NOT be a defense, since it was still a "harmful" theory to espouse, and thus illegal if done publically. Canada also criminalizes any expression of racial vilification, if the phone system is used, even between two parties in agreement with the speech, since the national phone system was involved - it's a prosecutable offense.

These laws, in brief, are based on the theory that "civility" (this was the language used in debate on the law in Canada's parliament) is more important than a free debate, especially when debated ideas are offensive or demeaning to somebody based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Simply put, most of the so called "progressive" world - Europe, Canada, etc. have some of the most orwellian, restrictive speech codes imaginable.

These laws are not just laws that apply to a person insulting an individual. They apply when a 'class of people' is insulted, and yes - numerous passages in the bible, the torah, and even buddhist texts could run afoul if espoused publically.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has some interesting things to say about these laws at their website.

In the US, we still have the freedom to express unpopular, or even racist ideas (except on college campuses, apparently), but in the UK, Canada, etc. you have the free speech to say whatever you want - as long as it's not offensive. How absurd.