You're not wrong, but I don't think it's as simple as a pure "facts/feelings" dichotomy, although that's a big part of it.
This is brushing up against a broader topic, it's cultural level above even just politics, that's been on my mind for some time now.
(This is going to be very rambling and stream of consciousness, feel free to skip, it's mostly me talking stuff out that's been on my mind for a bit)
[SNIP]
I'm not going to disagree with you as such, but I think you're conflating a couple of different concepts here. Which aren't completely unrelated, but they aren't the same thing, and imho the distinctions drawn between them by society more or less approximate what I'd want to see anyway.
The first, the guy crapping in the pool, is just a niche application of the tragedy of the commons. A public good which, through no particular fault of the part of people using it, becomes unusable by all. In this case it's one guy, but one guy that everyone else agrees ought to be able to use the pool. The solution is the same: dude just can't use the pool. "No crapping in the pool" is a good rule, and it's not his fault he can't abide by it, but he can't abide by it.
But, things are different when the offense isn't crapping in the pool, but "sharing the same water with a Black guy." That's just one of a significant and growing set of protected exceptions where society is saying "no, no matter how rustled you honkeys are having to rub elbows with
those people, you do not get to exclude them." The closest that bleeds into politics is where it crossed over into the paradox of tolerance, where privileged jackholes feel oppressed at not being permitted to oppress and demand the freedom to deny others' freedoms.
Neither of those seem to have a whole lot to do with your concluding analogies, the business store and how it relates to political strategy. I'm not sure what you're going for there. Maybe rephrase that?