@FireMadeFlesh You make many great points, but the point which I am trying to make is that there is a danger to conflating truths and opinions. The purpose of a court trial, for instance, is to arrive at the truth so justice can—ostensibly—be carried out. Whether or not this is an effective system (it often isn’t) is certainly a matter of debate, but if there were not one truth of a situation, why would we bother to have a trial at all? Or do you believe we shouldn’t?
The question, as I understand it, is rather vague and therefore very much in danger of mixing up facts with opinions. I certainly believe that opinions vary from person to person, but if I am in a room with no windows, then it is true for everyone that there are no windows in that room. It cannot be true for some people that there are.
Just to clarify further—I do completely agree that society should tolerate a spectrum of worldviews (perhaps not all worldviews) and there are many things that cannot be empirically determined (most of morality, for instance). But I also think we need to acknowledge that some things are true and not subjective.