What are the karmic ramifications for a casino mogul who builds a gambling empire, versus a child who inherits such an empire, versus the owner of a small diner who adds a corner video gambling machine to supplement the diner’s meager profit margin?

You are expecting that the big shot with the money and the means who creates the empire is the greater of evils, and the inheriting offspring simply falling in line through a preconditioned environment to accept their father’s unsavory vision is less culpable because they did not create the evil in the first place, but merely had it handed to them and, in a way, are conditioned to believe in it and accept it because it has always been a part of their life, and the owner of the diner the least culpable because their involvement with a gambling enterprise is only a small portion of their business operation, and so could not be a major liability karmically because it is not their full‑time enterprise. But we can tell you that in terms of the Law of Karma, all three may have a serious liability. In a sense, people who make a moral misstep have blinders. That is the flaw, that is the fault they are displaying. The extent of what happens is secondary to having the flaw, so it is a serious matter in each and every instance. Small transgressions are not safe to ignore and assume to be of minor or no real significance. In a sense, anyone who decides to do something immoral is stepping away from God and that will have a consequence independent of whether it only hurts them in the moment, or hurts others, or hurts many because it is a big misstep with many parts and goes on for a long period of time. The aggregate consequences do play in. So we are just wanting to shake things up a bit and not create the impression that because one is only making a small gain from an evil enterprise, that they have less to be concerned with than someone who depends on it more fully as the entire source of their income, and then try to make moral distinctions from there about becoming habituated through family involvement versus having a vision of an evil empire to begin with, and then creating it from scratch being a greater transgression. In one sense this is true, but the inheritor of the business is still choosing to behave like the father who created it and is taking on the same karmic burden from the consequences of the enterprise and will have a responsibility for all the harm that results. The fact that they grew up in that household and simply never had anything to compare it to and contrast with that way of life does not protect them from the karmic responsibility for their actions in causing harm to others. Ignorance is no excuse. Insensitivity and unawareness are no excuse. You are responsible for everything you are a part of energetically and, by the same token, the owner of a diner who only has a small stake in the gambling industry by having a moneymaking machine patrons can play and spend money on, there is still a karmic obligation because they are aiding and abetting an act of wrongdoing in their patrons. Because when people indulge in games of chance, they are hurting themselves and their loved ones as well secondarily, by creating a slippery slope that may draw a person into habits they cannot overcome and, in any event, are being taken advantage of each and every time because they are being lured into something that, by virtue of the odds, takes advantage of them over the long haul. No one born would choose at the outset to become a criminal if they were fully informed about the benefits and liabilities. So we are merely saying, "It is not much better when given the choice to make the decision to become a petty criminal rather than a felon." While differing in magnitude of transgressions and the karmic consequences likely to ensue, we are saying, "Because both are non-divine, both are poor choices and need to be worked against to resist ending up in such a lifestyle."