I responded that there were some laws that were only given to a certain segment of God's people in the first place
If this is to be the important consideration, could we not add the seventh-day sabbath to the list (please see Exodus 31 and Deuteronomy 5)?
If someone is offended by my faith the only thing that can be done about it for me to compromise my faith or for them to change their attitude.
Is it about compromising one's faith, or is it about recognizing which command is the greatest? If one behaves as though the dietary laws are the greatest, has he not compromised his faith?
The former is out of the question
Why? Because dietary laws are of greater importance than the greatest commandment?
I doubt that you would compromise your faith just because somebody was offended by it.
Offer up an example and let's explore it further. I seriously doubt that I would compromise my faith by hurting a person who is seeking to do a good thing for me and by placing a higher priority on dietary laws as opposed to the law of love.
As for your Scriptural quotation, Paul's preaching offended many people. He was ultimately martyred for his faith because some people were offended by it.
The quote included a very specific setting, a setting that is quite relevant to my hypothetical. Did you miss those similarities?
Paul was not talking about offending people by acts done in faith, otherwise he would be a hypocrite. He was talking about personal habits that are neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture.
Such as the following:
"And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" Thus He declared all foods clean." Mark 7:18-19
My hypothetical in the original post relates only to personal choices that are not forbidden by Scripture.
God knew what he was talking about when he told us that certain animals were not to be food for us.
Did He also know what He was talking about when He declared all foods clean?
I think God really had our best interests at heart when he gave us the dietary laws.
He also had someone's best interest at heart when He gave them feast days, circumcision, animal sacrifices and sanctuary practices. We know that the SDA denomination does not advocate for these. Do you?
Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, I believe that the dietary laws, like the rest of the Law, were given in love.
So why do so many pick and choose the laws that they like as though the law was a Sunday afternoon buffet. Why conclude that some laws are eternal and others are temporary? If jots and tittles have passed, then shouldn't we conclude that all is accomplished?
If he had created pigs and non-piscene sea creatures for human consumption, there would be no reason for Him to forbid them in Scripture.
Did he not create fruit for human consumption? And yet we have record that He forbad it in Scripture. Who are we to question God?
I don't really see a reason to make a distinction between "religious" and "health" reasons for abstaining from unclean meats.
If your reasons are "religious" in nature, then there must be a Biblical basis for them. Why does Mark write that Jesus declared all foods clean?
Also, I don't recall saying "the ceremonial law has passed away", I don't find the distinction between the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law" to be a useful one.
It was raised because, to many SDAs, it is a useful one. And that is certainly the context of this forum. If you don't find such a distinction to be useful, can you share with us the ways in which you personally practice the holy convocations listed in Leviticus 23?
BFA
SHNORKKKKK ... if you must, please just have A cheerio. Just one. 
