I think you're still missing the point: the freedom bits are not there for "idealogical purity", they're there because they provide practical benefits: the ability to inspect and modify the program's source code, and to build and run modified versions, without getting anyone's permission to do so. The FSF does believe that there ethical components as well, but you need not subscribe to them to see the benefits of free software.

I think you overestimate how helpful a paid support option is. I've spent time working with the vendor of closed source software to get issues resolved; it's often incredibly painful and time consuming, and meanwhile the business is not able to realize the full benefit of the software they've paid for. Meanwhile, I have never run into an issue in open source software that I wasn't able to fix on my own (absent help/response from upstream) or at least figure out a workaround, often one that would not be possible to figure out without source access. (Note that I'm explicitly ignoring the kind of "fit for purpose" issues that you're never going to resolve, period, whether it's closed or open.)

Adopting open source is not without its own risks, but it does give you many more options than any closed alternative ever will. If your business does not value that difference, then that's fine, as long as you've made that decision with open eyes.