I have no idea why BarTender seems to be somewhat fixated with Cloudflare not kicking certain sites off their network, but peering is almost always a business decision. Unless there was some great PR win to be made with Spark making a moral stand against CF (which there isn't because nobody in the general public has heard of or understands CF), then the lack of peering will simply be some kind of business decision. I'm not sure what benefit Spark gains from slowing down a *huge* and growing part of the internet for their customers, but oh well. And if there was a moral stand to be made against CF, then surely the best option would be to block them entirely?
Of course that'd break a large portion of the internet, but at least the children would be protected from the evils of imageboards, rah rah.
I do think it's worth noting that there are an absurd number of small/medium sites routed via cloudflare these days. DDOS attacks are the background radiation of the web, and only CF offer free, unlimited DDOS protection. This protection provides the basis for the small web - the millions of small websites which still exist outside the great castles of Facebook and Google. It would be an incredible shame and tremendous loss if CF was to cease their free DDOS protection or attacked by ISPs/govts.
I would also like to point out the irony of attacking CF on... a CF protected site. Perhaps BarTender could learn the old saying "Bite not the hand that feeds". We all benefit from CF's open policies, and it is NOT their role to police content - nor is it that of ISPs.