...Those seem odd choices, Ron, since they are all behaviors that victimize another person or persons.
The point was that if you can ignore one part of the Levite law, why not another part? It is no more - nor less - logical to ignore all of the provisions, whether or not they victimize others. That's the problem with the "cafeteria menu" approach to such issues.
What about the passages that prohibit women from wearing men's clothing? Or touching a football? Or wearing cotton/wool blended fabrics? What kind of trouble will we get into for deciding those can be overlooked?
As the author says:
Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Many of the prohibitions were directed at preserving the identity of the [Jewish | Hebrew | Israelite] culture in a world where it was a small and weak nation among many larger powers, a method of avoiding what we might now call assimilation or even cultural genocide.
In fact, in the NT, as described in Acts, we have a confrontation and a falling out between Peter/Simon and Paul/Saul over whether or not Gentile converts have to adopt the Levite laws.
BTW, we have no reference to Jesus ever having condemned slavery; therefore, would slavery an acceptable institution?
