Is one worse than the other? Are either inherently bad?

A flipper buys snakes and resells them without, often but not always, knowing to whom they are sold or what happens to them.

A breeder keeps snakes, maintains them, puts them together to encourage them to procreate and then sells the babies without, often but not always, knowing to whom they are sold or what happens to them.

One the one hand you've got a person purchasing a commodity and reselling it at profit. This person does not have anything to do with the creation of said commodity, they have no moral or ethical obligation to said commodity regaurding it's creation, though they do for it's keeping once ownership has vested in them, the reseller.

To the left, you have the person who IS responsible for the creation of said commodity, in this case baby ball pythons, and yet they, the breeder, are not held in any way, responsible for the eventual living situation of the baby snakes they have sold who would not be alive at all were not humans involved.

Both sell baby snakes. One is just a flipper. One is just a breeder. Both sell baby living creatures. One actually creates these creatures, one buys and sells them.

Heh. See what happens? You start thinking, then you go to wondering and then you hit a wall, throw up your hands and wonder why you wonder at all?

I don't know that there IS a correct answer.