If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

I think that peoples tastes are explicitly subjective. I suppose we may be able to generalize some things, we share a massive amount of our biology and that does actually include the way things taste to us. Those things would be the only things that I would include in a final revision of any "taste objectivism".

Okay, so your moral objectivism, would be akin to this final revision of “taste objectivism”?

The same logic you use to hold moral objectivism, can be applied to form taste objectivism as well.

While some things may subjectively taste bad, at least some things objectively taste bad? The reason why one set of taste remain in the subjective category, is because it’s not shared as in common as those tastes that are shared more commonly? A strong consensus of subjective taste, makes them objective tastes?

that exist indepedently of our minds, just like yellow and blue do.

Yep.

Reality possess “the stuff of morality”, which our minds can perceive, but exists independently of them, exists objectively.

Nope.  Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.  They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.  

Yellowness of things, the blueness of things, the squareness of things, exist objectively, out there, not dependent on our thoughts or categorizations, or beliefs. The balloon is yellow regardless of what I think or conceptualize. So either badness and goodnesses exists in such a way, or they don’t? I’m assuming the answer from you is that they don’t.

Do goodness and badness exists outside of our mental designations, or are they dependent on such conceptual designations to exists. That absent of human being to make such designations good and badness don’t exist? I.e, That holocaust is neither good nor bad.

Facts are not dependent on our beliefs, or thoughts, or designations. Yet you seem to insist that moral facts are.