Your OP suffers from black & white thinking and so does your rebuttal above. There are not just two possibilities: objective and subjective facts but facts may be derived from both subjective and objective sources or it may be that it is impossible to be sure if facts are either subjective or objective. That is why what I’ve said is not contradictory or a logical error. The same is true of your OP you seem to think that ethics are either objective in nature or subjective when of course the other options I’ve outlined are possible.
If by "black and white" you mean what is reasonable to believe, then yes that is my thinking. To exclaim "possibilities" without providing coherent justification is errnoeous. So far, you've said nothing to the claim that beliefs are either "all in the head" (subjective) or "out there in the world" (objective). My belief in unicorns may be subjectively true, but obviously objectively false. My belief in dinosaurs is objectively true because there were dinosaurs that existed, and we have evidence (bones etc.) to justify this. My belief about neon pink dinosaurs is obviously a subjective belief because no objective fact of neon pink dinosaurs exists. If objective facts pertain to states of affairs, a belief in such states of affairs is either objective or subjective. Objective facts cannot be subjectively justified if they are considered truly objective, at all. So to say objective facts are partly subjectively justified makes no sense, because the justification itself does not depend on a degree of subjectivity.
When we talk about the nature of ethics, it is incoherent to say the nature of ethics is part objective and part subjective. Which one is it? We don't say violently raping a woman is part objectively true and part subjectively true, the conduct itself is ethier right or wrong, and the judgement (belief) concerning that conduct is either objectively or subjectively true. The judgement makes no sense no other way.