It is equivalent to asking why a car driving towards me does not turn blue due to doppler shifting. Except even more negligible than that.
Edit: the pearl is made from around bound by electric forces, so you can repeat the same argument for inside the pearl. You can repeat it all the way down until you have to admit that the approximations inherent in the concepts useful to describe the world at distances from nano meters to mega parsec eventually break down.
It doesn't, it's just that the forces within the body (the spring in the analogy) are stronger than the expansion.
The "relative to space" bit is the nonsense part of their analogy, but I'm not sure of a clearer way to describe things than what they did. It's not my field.
The mathematically precise statement is that you are not moving on a geodesic. You are therefore experiencing acceleration (the objects that are not bound and have increasing distance are on geodesics and do not experience acceleration).
But the expansion of space does "stretch" light- or at least, the wavelength gets longer, so it's not not happening.
This makes me uneasy about your analogy. It’s like saying “relative to space” which is nonsense. Also, why would space limit itself to only expanding outside a physical body?