He was there to speak the common sense language of the real world.  The other 3 panelists were all from the world of government.  Winn was the only authentic person on the panel - so naturally, Granholm dismissed his thoughts as irrelevant.

With reference to muddying the waters but casting aspersions against the casino magnate, I see your point from a religious angle, but I hardly think that automatically lends credibility to Granholm and her Big Government "solutions."  Nor is it wise to plug your ears and scream "LA! LA! LA!" loudly so as to block out what Mr. Winn was saying.

As mentioned earlier, we have a choice to walk into a casino or not.  There are no armed federal agents forcing us to play the one-armed-bandits or have our lives destroyed as an alternative by the IRS.

So let's not lose track of the point in our desire to publicly parade our moral beliefs.  Mr. Winn's argument holds true whether we approve of his line of work or not.

DCuz