Most of your comments on this thread have been illogical.

Companies are not required to dole out free food. Them changing their policies to only reimburse certain kinds of food can be met with you leaving the company if it matters that much to you.

You can bring your own food or pay for it out of your own pocket if you need to. They have stated people with medical/religious requirements that need meat will have their needs met.

I think his point was that such a heavy handed policy that runs contrary to the views of most of the world's population is problematic. Since there will be situations where employees have little or no choice but to eat company sponsored meals, I for one don't see that to be "illogical".

At my current workplace I can only work from home once per week. I would vastly prefer working from home than the uncomfortable chair and noisy working environment of the office, but I have to make do.

Options available to me are changing jobs, asking for a policy shift because of medical issues, etc.

If you have to eat a more ethically sourced and less savory meal because of work I don't see that to be a large issue.

It actually is a large issue. Deciding for an employee what they can eat, or highly encouraging it, is a huge issue.

Comparing working from home to eating is two totally different things.

It doesn't really work that way. It takes more than having once eaten a single grilled cheese sandwich to qualify as a vegetarian.

That's a real stretch.

If the company refused to pay for an escort, they aren't forcing me to be celibate. They aren't affecting my identity they are just choosing not to pay for a certain act.

That's just a completely disingenuous comparison. It's pretty normal for companies to pay for work-related food, just as it's pretty normal for you to pay for food you eat on your own time.

It's pretty not-normal for companies to pay for escorts, just like it's pretty not-normal for you to pay for escorts on your own time. Some people pay for escorts, but it's pretty well outside social norms, and I can't imagine a business situation requiring an escort anyway.

Bingo.

In fact, it would be like a company who normally does pay for escorts, but then deciding they'll own pay for opposite sex escorts, instead of allowing same sex escorts.

They'd rightly be pillared for allowing one but not the other.

> It's pretty not-normal for companies to pay for escorts

I've known lots of companies to pay for escorts, but only the “walk you from the building to your car at night” kind and not the “euphemism for prostitute” kind.

> a business situation requiring an escort

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17453554

I dare say this is a horrible comparison. There are no circumstances under which employees are expected, or even required, to have sex at work (presumably at least not at a mainstream tech startup). There are, however, many situations where employees would be expected/required to eat company-sponsored meals.