I have always made the comparison of the Law with the 10 commandments in that while the Commandments are telling us what we should strive to NOT do, in relation to our interactions with the greater world around us, while the Law, with its 12 points, assumes that we ARE certain things within the bounds of common sense and societal and religious interaction.
There is always more than one way to interpret the meanings of philosophical tenets dependent on numerous interactions and situations. In relation to "obedient", the same dictum applies as to an order in rare instances in the military or similar dogmatic restrictive environments. IF, the order or expectation is recognizably against greater good or societal norms, then you may possibly or rightfully decide to NOT obey. That being said, your judgment should be made with strong supportive facts or opinion which you should share before your final decision. But, these types of occurrences should be rare.
Few, even those not integral to the Scouting movement would seriously deny that the Oath and Law are very good and viable guidelines for a civil society. As most know, one of the symbolic explanations of the Universal Symbol is that it was at the point of the compass needle and that Scouting precepts could be a compass for the voyage through life.
One of my biggest frustrations is that too often we are not intellectually or emotionally flexible enough to accept that there are few if any "absolutes" in life other than its finality. Our constant challenge is to not let our personal opinion be so static that we cannot see other possibilities. By the same token, if we are to live in a cooperative world society, we do need to agree that our "right" to personal opinion and action stops as soon as it trespasses on similar territory of another, or negatively affects the greater environment.
All just opinion and reflection of an old guy who tries to be fair within his life and interactions.