The right to liberty exists outside of society, but the decisions about to practice it oneself and to enforce it for others is a moral position.
The old saying, “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose,” is a moral position, one that works very well for society.
Robinson Crusoe didn’t need to care much about personal liberty until he ran into Friday. An omnipotent ruler wouldn’t have to care much about another’s nose or personal liberty, either.
In the case of our society, we enforce everyone’s right to liberty by government, in our case, a representative government. As a State, we’ve decided to limit - regulate - the business of gambling because of gambling’s risk to liberty and property.
Look up the relative costs of gambling to states and cities. (I’m on my way to a meeting, can’t do it, now.)
Preventing a fist from hitting you in the nose is a "protection of individual rights" issue. To confuse it with morality is missing the point entirely and unnecessary. Enforcing your version of morality on others is infringing on their rights, and no different than the extreme Left and their "moral" issues.
You're avoiding a glaring flaw staring you in the face. The state is the purveyor of legalized gambling itself. It's hypocritical, among many other things, to claim that their form is better than another one, esp when adjoining states allow it, cruise ships departing from the State's shores allow it, a majority of citizens participate in it and approve of it, and other forms of betting are allowed. More to the point, a politician who doesn't buy into that hypocrisy should be applauded.
You fail to understand the basics of ethics 101.
1. Rights exist without any external recognition. To decide whether or not to recognize and protect those rights as a society is a moral action.
2. As I said, “is” (the State is a “purveyor of gambling”) does not equate to “ought” (the State ought to allow more gambling). (Your mama probably says, “If your friend jumps off the roof, does that mean I should let you?”)