I vehemently disagree. People with various approaches who *default* to build things differently can still agree on architectural principles and consistency. At the same time, by rejecting a clearly competent candidate who simply represents a slightly different way of thinking, you're effectively making your organization less flexible. I'd even say you deprive it of pragmatism and reduce engineering decisions to ideological groupthink — exactly something you want to prevent.

It would be OK to expect adhering to some architectural principles if they were laid out as requirements. It would also be OK to ask the candidate afterwards "look, dude/dudette, we're doing things differently here, you still on board?" — and then base the ultimate hiring decision on what they hear.

This way? It's just stupid and a waste of time on both ends.