It is kind of odd how sparsely described the beginning is. There is the mistake of going out on the date to begin with, yes, but then there is this vague escalation. It's not clear what this entailed. Curt DM's and this person saying they're not "well read"? I'm sorry but "being disrespectful" is not a concrete valid complaint to file against someone.
Much of the following to me just reads as extremely naive. Not just about the termination itself but about how humans operate in social environments with power dynamics. Not surprising to me that the company as an entity would be extremely careful and would want to eventually cut ties. Coworkers aren't your friends, and companies aren't your family. The office is a factory. Once you're anything that resembles what might become a liability, you're costing the company resources to deal with. If you're challenging and thin skinned on this, what are you going to be hard with next? And as a Bay Arean you are already an extremely expensive employee. And easily replaceable. And then you're requesting special treatment, switching offices, remote, this, that, the other.
To be clear I'm only commenting on what is written, not what actually happened. Which I guess brings me to the final question: what exactly is the point of writing and publishing this as an article? That we will "rise up" against that one corporate brand known for being exploitative of gig-economy workers because of some awkward shit that went down up there in one of those glass towers?
My brutal take: The moment you go out on a date, or engage in any kind of social activity, you're opening yourself to the fact that it might sour. If you're doing that at work, then you should be open to the consequences souring your workplace. This kind of shit happens in most workplaces, but most people understand it as socially correct to just deal with the spectrum of consequences. In fact most people work in places where they just get shown the door for shit like this.