Where to begin on your post? How is physics biased? It is what it is. If you show me an EM field that discriminates between black and white electrons, I'll pay attention.
The main problem with your post is anthropomorphism. "Nature" doesn't exist as an entity. You repeatedly anthropomorphise it. That's a view which had some kind of credibility up to about 1853, when an English clergyman put the kybosh on the idea of a God running the world and somehow supervising the arrangement of living things. Nowadays even the Catholic Church has to dance around the handbags a bit on the subject.
Organisms are not provided with equal opportunity - they exist in an ecosystem which is what it is, and they rise and fall according to "fitness" - how well they are able to make use of energy sources and reproduce. There is no "weeding out of the weak" because (a) there is nothing to do the weeding and (b) it doesn't work like that - the big dinosaurs included some pretty top level predators but a sudden attack of climate change drove them to extinction while the mice,voles, frogs and birds survived. Natural selection is merely a descriptive placeholder for a very complex phenomenon indeed, one which leads to wasps using caterpillars as living food for larvae - but the caterpillar population continues to exist because despite being predated by the "stronger" wasps, they are capable of outreproducing the wasp predation. The race is not always to the swift nor is the battle always to the strong.
It is misconceptions like yours that provide a lever for the Creationists, and you shouldn't repeat them.
Meanwhile, back on topic, and by contrast, Amazon, Facebook and the like do exist, they are commercial organisations supposed to function in societies which very properly have laws against discrimination, and they are failing to do so. Handwaving about a nonexistent posited entity behaving similarly is of no significance whatsoever.