I suppose I have a more diplomatic sense of self than some people. If the rules are set, I will play by the rules. If during a dive I have to make a choice where following the rules would result in a patently unsafe situation, I will make the necessary choice to avoid the unsafe situation, fully expecting there to be repercussions anywhere from weighty discussions possibly as high as staying dry. I will not argue the rules, as I chose to follow them. In choosing to break them, even for my own safety, I would be making the fully-informed decision that the benefits to my safety outweigh the consequences of breaking the rules. However, I refuse to begin a dive knowing there exists a conflict with the rules whereby I cannot make the dive within my parameters of safety and enjoyment.
Certainly, there are places that I may choose to avoid due to particular rules or likely situations. I would much rather dive a site that aligns with my personal preferences rather than a site that requires me to squeeze through loopholes.
The edge case would be a site with unpublished surprising rules. If I'm already on a boat, and suddenly they tell everyone that pony bottles make you stupid and are therefore prohibited, I would be quite unhappy. I've been bitten by unpublished jack-in-the-box rules before at some inland sites, with the results being some of my least-enjoyed dives. In many cases, I have no desire to return.
Basically, as long as the rules are out there, if you want to do the dive, you follow the rules. Sure, you may not be able to do some dives in some places with some ops, as you don't want to follow their rules, but there's nothing that says everyone is entitled to dive everything everywhere. There is, after all, no fundamental human right to dive.