The CEO cannot unilaterally change company policy on employee benefits or anything else. And if the extent of his activism is to donate to a campaign 6 years ago (he has not spoken publicly on the issue very much) then it probably isn't a major issue for him.
And even he were a major campaign leader against gay marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean he is going to bring his politics into the Boardroom. The founder/owner of the Stagecoach bus company in the UK (Brian Souter) campaigned very strongly and publicly against the repeal of Section 28 (an statute that banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools), especially in Scotland, using his personal fortune to run an unofficial 'referendum' on the law there. However, Stagecoach has an excellent record as an equal-opportunities employer, with no-one expressing concern that Mr Souter was using his company as a platform for his own view on homosexuality or that its employment practices reflected it in any way.
Ultimately, limited companies are not Leninist organizations, in the sense of being the personal tool of the CEO. The CEO has to answer to the Board and if he did want to change Mozilla employment practice to discriminate against gays, or use corporate money to finance an anti-gay-marriage campaign, other Board members would have to agree to it.

No, most people will say, "Why are law enforcers bothering about someone who failed to return a borrowed video disk worth $10 nine years ago?" No formal statute of limitations here in the UK, but the Crown Prosecution Service would almost certainly drop the case due to lack of public interest / passage of time since the alleged offence.

That didn't help Christopher Tappin (exactly the sort of person your typical Home Counties Tory might be expected to support)

It would be easier for the US to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden. Our extradition treaty with the US has far fewer safeguards than does Sweden's. And Sweden wouldn't be able extradite him to the US anyway without him going back to the UK first. I don't see why he can't go to Sweden to face questioning. He seems to have a case to answer, as well he would if the allegations against him were made in the UK (not that this matters legally for a European Arrest Warrant to be valid, but it makes a difference morally).

Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, no-one over the age of about 11 has any business celebrating Hallowe'en (except parents of young children). So as a proud non-parent, I plan to stay at home and be glad I live in a gated block. But just in case somebody decides to buzz the gate for obnoxious kids, I shall avoid answering the door.

It has been used actually, in the mid 1990s. More recently the EP also used its power to reject an entire Commission line-up because it objected to one particular candidate.

This particular vote is non-binding, but the same is true about a lot of votes in national parliaments. You are also wrong to say that the Europarliament "[is] very weak and has limited influence"; actually it has equal power with the European Council over all EU legislation, and it has full veto pwer. For instance, MEPs rejected ACTA last year, meaning that the EU is unable to sign the treaty. It also rejected the software patents directive (remember that?) in 2005. Also because of the principle of separation of powers, MEPs are independent of both the Council and the Commission: there is no "payroll vote" as in most national parliaments, and consequently party discipline is much weaker. The situation is similar to that of US Congress; a US President cannot bank on unqualified support from Congress even when both the House and Senate are controlled by his own party. Finally the European Commission is indeed the executive branch of the EU, but it is NOT "directed by national governments": you are probably thinking of the Council, which is indeed made up of representatives of national governments. You can think of it as a kind of unelected Senate. Commissioners are appointed by national governments of each country, but once appointed they are independent of the government that appointed them.

because it's not science fiction, but political fiction. The only "futuruistic" technology mentioned is the telescreen, and that is only described in vague terms. Sure, it's a two-way communication / one-way surveillance device, but beyone that no attempt is made to describe how it's supposed to work. Everything else in the book is late 1940s technology.

Of course 1984 shouldn't be on the list, as it is not science fiction. It imagines a political dystopia, and does not go into details about the technology. In fact, apart from the "telescreens", the technology depicted in the story is crude and primitive compared to the real 1980s. 1984 is about the use of the /political/ power of a one-party state to achieve total control over people's lives.

It's also illegal in the EU, where privacy is taken very seriously. Frankly I'm shocked this is even an issue in the US; employers have no business demanding confidential personal info from employees or candidates.

Gender? Words have gender. People have sex.