While I agree that CloudFlare should not be required to provide service to anyone if they don't want to, this is a bad analogy. A brawler in a bar disrupts the ability of other customers to enjoy the service. CloudFlare providing DDoS protection to Kiwi Farms doesn't disrupt the ability of its other clients from receiving this service.
The entire point of DDoS protection is that your clients will be the targets of attacks, possibly because they're saying or doing something someone objects to. This is like a bodyguard being shocked that some of its clients are criminals. With this, CloudFlare has tipped its hand and shown that it's not a reliable provider of protection; the first time anyone raises a little stink they unilaterally terminate the service of one of their clients and throw them to the wolves.
The entire point of DDoS protection is that your clients will be the targets of attacks, possibly because they're saying or doing something someone objects to. This is like a bodyguard being shocked that some of its clients are criminals. With this, CloudFlare has tipped its hand and shown that it's not a reliable provider of protection; the first time anyone raises a little stink they unilaterally terminate the service of one of their clients and throw them to the wolves.