I agree with you that the arguments presented thus far to suggest that this policy is not merely fine but morally neccessary are unsound.
However, I do think that a case can be made that this policy is more morally sound than a "no meat eating" policy. The moment you walk into a strip club, you are "consuming" the product, because it is mostly a visual product. Unlike an restaurant where a person can not consume any meat themselves either by getting something meatless or not eating at all. To do the equivalent at a strip club would require literally wearing a blindfold. Thus, by allowing some employees or clients to choose a stripclub for a business meeting, coercively pressures other employees or clients to consume something they have a strong objection to.
Also, one policy being "more moral or better" than the other is purely a matter of subjective taste, because all morality is a matter of subjective taste. If fostering and promoting the sexual objectification of women is felt to be worse than fostering and promoting the killing of animals for food, then the OP policy is "better" and "more moral" than a policy against meat eating. If you feel there is no subjective difference between the acts, then there is no difference between the policies. But that is in turn not objectively different than feeling there is no difference between a policy of "No expensing KKK membership" vs. "No expensing athletic club membership". In all cases, 100% of the moral difference lies in your personal subjective tastes and feelings about the actions.
Right, and that was the point I was making. I see no inherent immortality in strip clubs. If an adult wants to take their clothes off for money, I see no issue with that. If other adults want to pay to see people take their clothes off for money, I see no issue with that either. Now, obviously there are some people working at companies who would disagree with me about that, so a standard policy of taking clients to strip clubs would be a bad thing. However, not everybody always has to do the same thing, so the fact that there would be people who would not want to go isn't relevant, just whether or not the people in the specific group involved would want to go.
If you have a group of employees and customers who are all fine with going to a strip club, then I don't see why expensing that would be less viable than taking the clients to a football game. There may be other employees elsewhere in the company who hate football because they feel it contributes to a violent society and finds their lack of action on concussion related injuries to the players deplorable, but if those people aren't in the group which is taking the clients to the game, then it should still be an acceptable client appreciation expense because the people who are anti-football aren't involved.
I believe that the provision of ANY gift, inducement, bribe, or kick-back to customers (or potential customers) by businesses is inherently immoral and corrupt, and should be prohibited.
My widgets should not lose market share because my competitor who sells lower quality widgets at a higher price gives our customer's purchasing officers a free trip to the football, a strip club, or even the drive-through window at McDonalds. And purchasing officers should make buying decisions based on the price and quality of the widgets, not on which supplier gives out the best bribes.
Stop with the bribery and sell your products on their merits, you fucking evil corrupt bastards. If you are making enough profit to pay for bribes, then you should lower your prices instead - so that all of your customers benefit, not just the ones who take bribes. And if your company's purchasing decisions are made by people who accept bribes, then it's time to fire the corrupt bastards and employ purchasing officers with some integrity and decency.
