I do agree both families should be equally respected. But it's not exactly parallel, enjoying a particular food on the one hand and having a religious restriction, much less a taboo, on the other. Traditions and preferences simply aren't equivalent to religious law. No one is going to feel like an outsider at their own child's wedding because the menu doesn't happen to include pork. Or meat at all.
I don't know of any religion or culture that absolutely requires that meat be served at every meal, let alone any particular kind.
If a vintner's daughter married a guy from a family whose religion strictly forbade alcohol, her parents might well be disappointed if they don't serve their family's wine at the reception. And it would not violate any etiquette rule if they do so.
But in my opinion the classier, respectful thing to do is to keep the wedding reception dry, and perhaps serve the family wine at another event of the weekend that's just for your relatives or something, or give those who want it a bottle to take home. That way the groom's family will feel like the wedding itself is their family's special event, too, not like they are just ordinary guests.
Which it is, in my opinion, which I readily acknowledge is shaped by my own cultural traditions. In my community, for example, wedding invitations always list the groom's parents as well as the bride's, and usually all as hosts, no matter whether they are contributing financially or not. The wedding is treated as a major life cycle event for both families.
So that's why I wouldn't want to see a taboo item for either family on the menu, even if other options are available. I've seen it happen, and it wasn't a big deal, but I can tell you that people thought it wasn't very nice of the hosts and made them look tone-deaf at best.