The league seems to be embracing contradictions. Infractions that affect the outcomes of games, or how people are able to go about their business are one set of problems that sports leagues consequate: gambling, PED's, impugning the integrity (as opposed to the intelligence and accuracy) of the refereeing.
Then there are things players do that make the league look bad: use recreational drugs, abuse women, make embarrassing political or social statements. These also have their penalties.
But both of these have changed culturally over time. This is more noticeable in the second category currently, where making comments that seem denigrating to groups is regarded as just as bad as actually committing crimes. Also, some crimes are apparently worse than others, and appearances matter greatly.
I absolutely get it that the leagues are selling a product, and anything that interferes with selling product is up for review. They can insist players wear pink - okay, they already do that - or sing only funkadelic music, or sponsor hamster homelessness relief or whatever they damn well please. They are selling a mythology (winning games is subsidiary to this), and you either fit or you don't. But then they can't turn and say "But we are disapproving of this behavior because we think it's really, really, wrong," according to some objective standard. Because a lot of things are really wrong, but we care about different ones in different decades.
Sorry, lost my head there. Of course they can turn and say that, because they are also subject to the rules of the mythology, and must also sell product. They can't do it honestly or honorably, but what is that?