The answer is "no".

Depends what you don't like about it. If you don't like the subject matter, it shouldn't matter. If you don't like the level of profanity or such, it shouldn't matter. If you don't like the style...well, it still wouldn't really matter to me.

Whether you like his books or not, he does know his stuff--point of view, characterization, world-building. I think it would still be helpful.

I think I can answer that, at least from my viewpoint.

I once took a creative writing class at BYU where I didn't have the choice in who the professor was, had I known who the professor was and what her viewpoints on writing were, I would not have taken the class. The class was supposed to have been on poetry, but the instructor decided to focus on short story.

Because the instructor was the published author, unless your viewpoints matched hers, there was little merit in them. I got very little out of the class as a result, and there was very little that got taught actually on the mechanics of how to write. And, most of her "teaching" of how to write short story ended up being reading assignments of various short stories. In the end though, I got some of the highest praise from fellow classmates for my short story in comparison to the ones she praised, much to her chagrin. Anyway, the whole experience left a bad taste in my mouth, and not having money I can burn, have since viewed taking any additional "classes" in creative writing, including workshops you have to pay for, with a certain level of skepticism.

Ultimately, what the message ends up being, aside from having some innate talent, is just practice. Write, rewrite, revise, and have others review it throughout the process. And, when you are paying for a class or workshop, I wonder how honest the people are going to be at telling participants they have little to no innate talent at writing.

In my opinion, if you don't like the author's style, you may not get much out of the class. What is needed is a mentor / mentee relationship. That is not likely to happen in a group setting where there may be dozens of people per class iteration all vying for Mr. Card's attention and secretly hoping to get in that inside track of becoming a prodigee.

Realistically talent is perhaps only half of the equation. The other half of it is having the connections and marketing before becoming famous. From what I've read between the lines, OSC was a prodigee of sorts to a number of LDS authors and English professors when he was in school at BYU. And of course, he does have talent at telling a story. Yet his is but one style at doing it.

My two-cents worth advice, and that is probably all it is worth, is learn the basics of what makes good writing... the building blocks (which include some of the things Euphrasie mentioned) and practice with a local writing group. Develop your own style by the way you combine those elements with your unique personality, because you don't want to be remembered for simply imitating someone else's style.

If you can get into a workshop / class where the instructor (regardless of how famous or accomplished they are) really is there to coach and work with the participants, great. But, if they are there only because it is there job, you really haven't gotten the value for your dollar.

I would think I could get a lot out of OSCs writing methods without needing to like his writing (I do, by the way - just so you know I'm biased ).  Does your husband share your dislike of OSC's writing (not that it matters IMO)?  I know I don't share all the same dislikes (or likes) as my wife.

In fact, Piers Anthony has a weird habit of beginning a series with simply world class writing, and then later in the series writing so poorly that my 11 year old could do better.
I think he gets bored with the series and gets sloppy towards the end.  Haven't read anything of his in quite a while.

The upshot of all this is that why would you waste timing learning a style that doesn't work for you?
I don't think it is a matter of writing style but the methods that are used to create a literary work.  I think the same methods can be used for a wide variety of styles.

I don't know much about OSC's methods, but even those can change from writer to writer. One thing I remember he said is that you have to be careful about the point of view you're writing from. For instance, many science fiction writers, if a door irises open, will point this out by saying something like "the door irised open in front of the ensign as he came in with the bad news." OSC said that this is wrong, since the characters wouldn't think about the door irising - for them, all doors do that. So you have to introduce things that make sense from the character's POV. That's true as far as it goes, but I didn't like his example. For instance, I wouldn't think twice about it if I read in a book that a character swung a door open.
I didn't really like OSC's methods for exposition of facts necessary to move the story forward.
But who am I to be critiquing? He's a published, popular writer, and I'm just a wannabe.

protégé, protege, prodigee, prodigy, pedigree, apogee, perigee...   Oh well, what can I say... I don't speak no Frenchie...   I didn't realize I had put the wrong word in until either last night or this morning, and then I didn't care to edit it. 

I have several of OSC's books on writing.  They do have some good stuff in them (like most books on the craft of writing), but sometimes the writing style even within them comes off as a little condescending.  Maybe it is just me, I don't do well with condescending.  Ted Kooser's book on writing poetry is very much a good read.  It is like one normal person talking to another normal person.

A bootcamp type thing can probably be just as effective with a local writers group for just bouncing ideas back and forth.