Only point I disagree with in this article:

"The problem is that there is no separation of the artist from the art. And when that art in question is a figure of the cultural significance of Superman, the choice of who gets to put words in that mouth is about more than a literal reading of whatever script he turned in."

I personally believe that as soon as a work has left the mind of the artist for the physical world, it becomes an entity in and of itself, independent of the artist's intent. In this or really any regard, to reject a body of work due to the personal flaws of the artist is an incredibly close-minded way to go about appreciating art. There's good evidence that Charles Dickens was rabidly anti-Semitic, at least early in his career. Does this mean we have to reject his work? Ezra Pound was a Fascist and by many accounts a total bastard. Does this preclude us from appreciating his poetry? And not to tread too closely to relativism, which I don't really like as a philosophy, but there's a lot of speculation pointing towards Walt Whitman being gay. Does that mean that somebody who's really homophobic is justified in rejecting Leaves of Grass?

I haven't read much from Orson Scott Card after Ender's Game, mainly because I felt like the writing just fell to shit pretty quickly following that one. As Kleinbl00 points out, there are hints of Card's political POV even in that, as in all of his works. But I don't think that disqualifies something like Ender's Game from being good work. By all technical and stylistic accounts, a strong case can be and has been made for some of his stuff. His social/political views are unfortunate, and it sucks that he might inject such notions into his books. But just like every other idea that's folded into a piece of art, those ideas are subject to distortion as soon as the words leave his fingers. A work takes on a life of its own, and it may not end up where the author intended or wanted it to end up. If a work is fundamentally strong, then that kind of supersedes any philosophical flaws the artist may have suffered.