I bet it does not allow refusal of any service for any reason but is very limited in scope. LA times is lying.
I don't care if it does. Barry Goldwater was against the civil rights act of 1964 because he said it would be very subject to abuse.
Prior to that time, an owner of a business could serve who he wanted or reject who he wanted, and he didn't have to explain his reasons to anybody.
This is called "Freedom." There is no natural obligation to provide services or products to people to which you do not wish to provide services or products. The left does this constantly, such as "gofundme" refusing to provide services to Christian bakers being sued by homosexuals.
Barry Goldwater recognized the camel's nose under the tent, and while the civil rights act of 1964 was supposedly created for honorable intentions, it still works out to being the government imposition of morality, and government interfering with other people's freedom to do as they wish.
It is in essence "forced association." Which is the opposite of "freedom of association."