It's still an ideological position, but it's got a more solid footing than the political one. Reasonable people can disagree on the effects or values of different monetary policies under different political environments, but nobody can arrive at the view that they're the same without being pretty ignorant on the subject. "This is the nature of capitalism" [1] can become a discussion between sane people, vs., "there's a 70-year-long grand conspiracy to loot society and it's because men aren't men anymore", for which no charitable interpretation exists.
Some people will be quick enough to point out that everything that happened in the BB&B case was completely legal, and maybe even right or correct to do under certain circumstances, that there shouldn't even be disagreement that this is the house capitalism builds. Under this system, some people can build a business (which may have some unfortunate side-effects in some communities or on the environment), and the same people or other people can come along and then loot the business for everything they can get away with, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. At the moment, there are lots and lots of businesses that have ripened on the tree of capitalism, and there are lots of people with the skills and greed required to loot them. Sure, it sucks for consumers and the public [2], but how many times in history have they really had a say in how society should be run?
[1]: Please don't misread this as an argument that other -isms are better. That's not an argument anyone can productively have on this website.
[2]: Arguably. There are plenty of people that will counter-argue that society is actually better off when this sort of thing happens because, I dunno, people got cheap toasters or something.