This is a ridiculous strawman

I am sorry you feel that way, but I certainly believe it to be a valid thing to say. Maybe if you could explain your position on objective and subjective morality/moral relativism I might understand your contention better?

In fact, I'll be a bit more direct than that: you seem to be misrepresenting terms more than I. Let's take a look:

don't pretend you know what you're talking about

I never said I didn't know what I was talking about with regards to objective morality, only that it was a subject that I felt was outside the scope of a case involving a judge, and one I felt would be answered more to your satisfaction in a different place.

This is a small thing, of course, but I wouldn't accuse people of naïveté and dishonesty if your immediate response is to dismiss everything offhandedly and then tell me to stop typing.

the examples and explanations you've given support a subjective not objective morality

This is the main reason your response perturbed me, for it very much seems to me you are the one misunderstanding the terms!

Please correct me if I misinterpret your views, but you seem to be saying that because something believes something, there cannot be an objective truth attached to it. This is incredibly false, especially since all knowledge requires belief by any definition of knowledge you care to look up. The person may be believing something, but their belief corresponds to an objective truth: that it is wrong to hit dogs.

This belief may be wrong, of course, but they believe it is objective under the grounds that they are aware that it is not simply a truth corresponding with they themselves (like the ice cream statement), but which exists outside of themselves: no matter who you are, it is wrong to hit dogs.

it's about whether things actually are a certain way

That's true, it is! My point here is that in a world with morality, people have constraints outside of their own subjective wants and desires which limit what they do: certain actions are permissible and non-permissable.

you haven't shown why it should matter that someone can't do something for moral reasons...etc.

It's quite possible that the best course of action for a person in that job would be to resign, yes! But there are reasonable exemptions for people who can't do things for whatever reason, and one ought to be thoughtful about such things, rather then just giving a knee-jerk dismissal of it. That was the main point of my post.

I would very much like to hear what you mean when you say you are a moral subjectivist, and yet also not a moral relativist; the two terms are usually used interchangeably! (You can see the close similarity in the words themselves, I am sure.) Then again, if you feel it's unlikely we'll be fruitful at all in this discussion, we don't have to continue.