No, it's not, and it's pretty damn rude to make that claim in the presence of legitimate businesspeople.
I'll take an honest crook any day.
The typical moral distinction b/w a business and other entities which make money is a business (presumably) does it within the constraint of their counterparties enjoying the liberty of choice. This becomes a grey area when government enters the picture and removes liberties--which is why there is debate about the legitimate role of government's monopoly on legitimate violence/aggression here.
1 - note, a further distinction could be made between entities which create value, and those which transfer it.
That's not true. A business is a vehicle for making money, that's it. Most businesses do this by providing goods or services, but certainly not all - for example, financial traders that only manage their own funds, like the Renaissance Medallion fund.
Even here, we still can observe that in most cases (except those where government interferes, or perhaps with organized crime) the counterparty is also enjoying a choice in whether or not they want to do the deal. I would argue that in cases where a counterparty has no choice, such a scheme should not be viewed as a legitimate busines, as it historically would not be.
I'd still argue that a business does not have to provide a good or service to be considered a business though. The Medallion Fund that I mentioned solely exists to make money for its owners - it does not provide any goods or services.