Your moral code contains the belief: It is morally wrong to break the law, because breaking the law can lead to my going to jail.
Not at all! I apologize if that's what it seemed like I was saying. My entire point about the law example was to explain why a person might behave in a way that is contrary to her moral code. A "reason" for behaving in accordance with another person's moral code could be that the other person's moral code is law and you don't want to go to jail.
I want to emphasize that I'm making an example here, not speaking generally about law-following.
Also, this is not the kind of reasoning I would use for a moral stance. I do believe it's wrong to break the law (without a good reason, depending on the law, yadda yadda...), but the reason is because I think a culture with a habit of law-breaking is likely to break laws that I want people to follow, such as laws against rape and murder. I guess it's sort of a slippery slope argument, although it should be noted that my standards for "good reasons to break the law" (depending on the law) are not extremely high. I break the law routinely (as do most people) and think nothing of it most of the time.
You believe that that statement is true, not just for you but for everyone.
Quite the opposite. Again, I was giving an example of why a hypothetical person might decide to follow a law they believe to be immoral. For someone who values chaos above all else, rampant lawbreaking would be a good thing (for that person--still immoral by my lights).
None of your explanations of why others behave differently includes the possibilities that for some people it is not morally wrong to break the law.
Don't they? Consider this:
A young man joins a protest on the streets of Moscow. The protest gathers a massive crowd and they begin engaging in civil disobedience by obstructing a government building. The young man does not want to go to jail, but he knows that it is a possibility if he joins in the civil disobedience. However, he believes that the protest will be effective if more people join in the civil disobedience. If he values the moral goals of the protest very highly, it is moral for him to join the protest and get arrested. He is willing to risk an undesirable consequence to gain the advancement of his moral views within his society. I.e.:
Some people are simply willing to take the risk in hopes of getting a payout
It should be noted that this example says nothing of the content of the person's moral beliefs, because the content is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. This scenario could be one in which I agree with the protesters, or it could be one in which I disagree.
As for your last paragraph,
Your justification for your moral belief is objective.
No, in my view my moral beliefs are unjustified and indeed unjustifiable, as are everyone else's. I think part of the confusion here comes from the phrase "it is moral for so-and-so to do such-and-such". This is ambiguous between "it's only moral for them" and "it's moral for them to do it" (i.e., they're the ones doing it). To state my view correctly, I should really say something like: It is moral for ISIS for ISIS to kill innocents. It is immoral for me for ISIS to kill innocents. This is a rather awkward way of speaking, which is part of the reason why virtually all relativists talk as if they were realists in most circumstances.
How can you claim that you are a moral relativist when your moral beliefs are based on objective facts?
My moral beliefs are based on objective facts, but not justified by them. My belief that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong is based on the objective facts of my genetics and upbringing which through a number of complex factors caused my brain chemistry to be a certain way (such that I don't want other creatures to suffer unnecessarily). Also, the objective facts my moral beliefs are based on are not moral facts. I don't believe in moral facts.