There was one I ran across that required (in it's contract too) that the dog be fed a raw diet. This same one asked if the dog would be allowed on the furniture and in a conversation stated they would not adopt to anyone who did not allow that. Whether or not someone allows it is a personal choice but has no bearing on how good a home it is for a dog.
I've heard of a few rescues/rescue stories like that. One involved an otherwise lovely small animal killer dog being left in a home with small animals because he was happy there, so the finders (who'd been looking for help finding the previous owners, or rehoming him) had to work on their own. Then you get the strange adopters, as have been mentioned already.
But criticism of one is not criticism of all: the presence of inadequate or overzealous rescues does not preclude or negate the existence of good ones, and same goes for adopters. We can all discuss appropriate conditions for rescues and adoptors while recognising that a lot, or probably most, people out there are decent people working off often limited information.
So how do you reconcile that limited information, the ability of bad or careless people to provide the 'right' answers (and good people to provide the wrong ones), the varying standards of good homes in the first place, and finding places for dogs?