The idea of blasphemy began not only with the monotheistic religions of the Fertile Crescent and the Hebrew peoples, but as a cross-cultural development in the history of religions. When deityhood was emphasized, and as religions developed, people saw the inadequacies of language in pointing to, in explaining the divine. It was thought to be ineffable, and purely a mystic, experiential factor. In Zen, for example, the idea is that the cup must be emptied before it is filled. In contemporary thought of someone like Krishnamurti, the idea again is that thoughts and words do not begin to explain the ineffability and grandeur of God when experiencing God.
To us, however, in our Western worldviews, blasphemy was carried throughout the times in a legalistic sense of a single omnipotent deity. It was a law, "do not say my name in vain", because the holy name (YHWH) was thought to not only be holy because it spoke of God, but thought to have significance in itself, as a vital connection between the divine and the everyday.
Now? Since words adapt, change in meaning, grow in use, and because culture is an everchanging phenomenon that uses language to communicate, blasphemy has acquired the meanings people have mentioned here. It is a disrespect, or a wrong done were norms clearly dictate action to the contrary. In acting in a contrarian manner, the person has done a wrong so odious and onerous, that it is akin to desecrating an Absolute, an Ultimate, God Himself, by the offending deed.
So I guess my answer is "yes, it depends."
And to an Orthodox Jew, my post is likely blasphemous.
Cheers !
Facebook
Twitter