Bring what into view?
Working conditions that may affect people's buying decisions.
But it's not the lack of health benefits that is the issue. Tons of businesses with similar structures to Papa Johns don't provide health benefits. The point of contention is that Papa John's is choosing to reduce their workers hours in order to avoid being required by Obamacare to provide employees who never received health benefits before with health benefits. It's the choice to reduce hours to avoid the mandate that is the issue.
The point being if Obamacare were not passed, Papa John's would not be reducing their part time workers hours. So the blame likes in the change in the law, not with Papa John's.
No different than deciding not to buy a certain brand of shoes when you learn they're sewn by legless orphans. But I suppose if I buy shoes on Monday and learn this on Tuesday, I'm not allowed to decide on Wednesday not to buy from them any more. I mean, I could have known Monday so now I'm never ever allowed to make an informed decision!
Ok. You'll get no argument from me over the reality that people only get outraged over things when someone with a loud enough microphone tells them to get outraged. But that does not change the fact that the selectivity in this case is motivated, not by the absence of health care by Papa John's. but the response of the company to a law that is the darling of the left and should not be questioned or criticized. Do you know how many companies have tons of part time workers and don't provide them with health benefits? Do you know how many are shuffling their employee hours around in order to avoid the mandates in Obamacare? Want to know why Papa John's is being singled out? Not because they're doing this, but because they committed the cardinal sin of actually saying "We're being forced to do this bad thing by Obamcare".
I don't know anyone boycotting Papa John's who isn't a fan of Obamacare. Not health benefits. But the law itself. That's the problem with this. It's so obviously not about the benefits, but about circling the wagons around the law, and by extension, the president. Is a boycott at its most basic a capitalist behavior? Absolutely. But the motivation for this isn't about consumers not liking the product or business practices in question, or they'd be boycotting about 80 percent of the retail/restaurant industry. The motivation is protection of what absolutely is a socialist policy.
So while we could suggest that the individual *might* be employing a tool of capitalism in the form of a boycott, the motivation for doing so is socialist. The reason for targeting that company is about making other companies afraid to speak out against the law. This is about intimidation. Nothing more.
No. It's not what capitalism is about.
It's absolutely what capitalism is about. People making purchasing decisions and voting with their dollars.
When those decisions have to do with market choices, yes. But that's not really the case here.
So don't blame capitalism
I'm not. I'm applauding people making informed decisions on who to buy pizza from.
They're not making "informed decisions" though. They're making a decision based on incredibly skewed and biased information. They're being told "boycott this company because of X", while magically not being told to boycott the 500 other companies also doing X. So they're not really doing it because of X, but because of some other reason. And that reason goes to why those calling for the boycott did so. And that's absolutely not about benefits or hours or wages. It's because Papa John's was one of the few companies that has actually publicly criticized Obamacare.
Lying to people about what's going on is not really informing them, and people making decisions based on that are not making "informed decisions". They're being used as ideological tools.