Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

Yes.

The title of this HN submission doesn't match the title on the article. Dawkins doesn't seem to be arguing in favor of firing all creationist astronomers; rather, only those whose religious beliefs conflict with their astronomy work. Not all creationist views are identical.

[Edit: HN submission title has been revised. Thanks!]

Do you have any idea how deeply flawed your reasoning is?

By the same reasoning, if a schizophrenic claims the sky is blue and we all agree with him, that makes us schizophrenic too.

You must have read a completely different article than I did, because as far as I can tell you are entirely mistaken about the content.

"A senior colleague at Oxford told me of an astronomer who, on religious grounds, believes the universe is less than ten thousand years old...He publishes mathematical papers in learned journals, taking it for granted that the universe is nearly fourteen billion years old and using this assumption in his calculations. He bottles up his personal beliefs so successfully that he is capable of performing calculations that assume an old universe and make a genuine contribution to science. My colleague takes the view that this YEC is entitled to a job as a professor of astronomy, because he keeps his private beliefs to himself while at work.

I take the opposite view. I would object to employing him, on the grounds that his research papers, and his lectures to students, are filled with what he personally believes to be falsehoods. He is a fake, a fraud, a charlatan, drawing a salary for a job that could have gone to an honest astronomer. Moreover, I would regard his equanimity in holding two diametrically opposing views simultaneously in his head as a revealing indicator that there is something wrong with his head."

That looks like a pretty straightforward argument in favor of firing creationist astronomers to me!

This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in?

Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If the job involves some kind of proselytizing for Atheism, rejecting people based on religious views might make sense. Otherwise, I don't see how it's relevant.