things go off topic in a hurry here, don't they?
the closest example i have heard is someone not getting hired by science magazine for a being creationist.
i have never heard of a creationist paper being rejected by a peer-reviewed journal for ANY REASON. this is for two reasons:
1. creationism is not science, makes no scientifically testable claims, etc. they'd have no place in a science journal.
2. creationists are not really interested in being legitimate science. they are more interested in saving souls, and so they go straight to a more ignorant public where they get laughed at less.
™ Version 4.2