Colours are not subjective. They can be strictly defined as light with a wavelength between a given range. Of course, you can argue whether a specific wavelength is called either green or blue, but that is just semantics. Speaking of which, if you are not sure non-subjective things / events exist, which obviously means you must exclude most of science from the label objective, what exactly do you mean by subjective?
Also, I'm still confused by your statement that morality exists in objects.
Colour is not defined by their wavelengths a priori
. Colour, as in the specific qualia associated given the name as that colour, happens to come about via light of particular wavelengths hitting our retinas
I'll mention again that the subjective/objective divide is used in several different ways. Non-subjectivity may not exist in the sense of everything that exists only existing through experience (idealism), however we can then define objectivity in terms of inter-subjective relations (which manifests itself as the material realm). Alternatively, we may define the objective as that part of our experience which is represented as external to us, and the subjective as that part of our experience which is internal to us. In the former sense, qualia is subjective, in the latter it is objective. The former requires existence outside of the individual, the latter does not.
I will use the division of subjective vs. objective to refer to either of those two divisions without necessarily specifying which I mean.