IMHO this reflects poorly on CloudFlare. The supreme court has ruled time and time again that the right to free speech implies the right to be heard. While CloudFlare obviously isn't legally required to serve 8chan, the only service they are really providing is making it so that 8chan can't be DDOS'd. And DDOS'ing is very clearly a tactic that violates the first amendment. So really by no longer serving 8chan, the on…
It's been ruled private companies can discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to provide service to them (ie: a wedding cake). Also been ruled you can discriminate against customers based on religious beliefs (ie: refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control) see “religious refusal” and “conscience protection” laws.
There are the usual side-debates though: the ban being strategically effective and the ban being in-line with how the us constitutions concept of free speech gets interpreted.
Personally I'm not sure to what degree the latter might be relevant for an apparently(?) Filipino company.