So the problem here is that you've missed key things that aren't in the post.
Sec. 3. Definitions. (a) The term “politicized or unlawful debanking” refers to an act by a bank, savings association, credit union, or other financial services provider to directly or indirectly adversely restrict access to, or adversely modify the conditions of, accounts, loans, or other banking products or financial services of any customer or potential customer on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s political or religious beliefs, or on the basis of the customer’s or potential customer’s lawful business activities that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons.
Herein lies the problem. "Political or religious beliefs" would not include hosting, purchasing, or selling nsfw stuff It can be your political belief you should be allowed to, but there's a key distinction between that and hosting it. It might be litigated that that constitutes practice of religion, but they'll lose in SCOTUS (if not beforehand) on first amendment grounds - specifically freedom of religion, allowing processors to refuse to handle transactions that violate their religion.
Companies are also not forced to actually disclose why they're refusing to work with anyone. They could simply not work with anyone that hosts NSFW content. And even if we know that's exactly why they're doing it, it won't matter.
Not to mention that other court cases have actually legislated in favor of discrimination on 1st amendment grounds - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Comm...