Maybe the question is not so much if monastics feel bound by such laws but what kind of consequences would happen if they disregard it. For example, what kind of actions secular authorities will take to enforce it and how that influences one’s personal practise and general sangha life.
Personally, I think that as a monastic, I am bound by dhamma-vinaya and have a duty to respect it and make an effort to keep it. If secular law actually contradicts basic dhamma principles in a way that interferes with my monastic life, it may be better for serious practitioners to go elsewhere. The Buddha recommended not to stay in unsuitable places and we are homeless wanderers anyway.
In practise, this may not always be possible (visas, support), but is an ideal to aspire to.
If you adapt vinaya to follow secular law, all kinds of undesirable consequences arise. If I understand correctly, the laws governing the sangha in Thailand have lead to the creation of strong hierarchies, power struggles, and other tendencies that directly contradict the Buddhist mental training. It seems crazy for a serious practitioner to willingly submit to that. But maybe it is possible for individuals to stay out of it all and do their own thing. So the secular law wouldn’t have any impact on them.
At the moment, bhikkhunis are still lucky because we are not so much part of the patriarchal hierarchy and therefore not that much impacted by secular laws governing the sangha power structures.