A319 Captain reported refusing the aircraft due to non compliance with maintenance requirements of a Maintenance Discrepancy item and Maintenance Control communications issues.

Narrative

I was scheduled to operate a flight ZZZ-ZZZ1 with Aircraft X. Upon reviewing the aircraft logbook; I noted that the aircraft had a Maintenance Discrepancy applied as of Day 1. The Maintenance Discrepancy requires an inspection at the 'Next scheduled Routine Overnight (RON) or Routine Overday (ROD) at a Company staffed maintenance station not to exceed 30 days'. I then reviewed the aircraft; routing history and discovered that the aircraft had RONed in ZZZ2 the previous night. I called Maintenance Control to inquire as to why the inspection had not been completed during the ZZZ2 RON. The Technician (Person A); whose name I can't recall; stated that the system indicated ZZZ2 had deferred action due to the aircraft's late arrival into ZZZ2. I voiced my concern that I believed the aircraft ZZZ2 RON had constituted the next RON stipulated in the Maintenance Discrepancy. Person A disagreed and said the aircraft was legal to be operated. I told Person A I would do more document review and call them back. I reread the Maintenance Discrepancy; the definition of a RON in the MEL and the aircraft's routing history. After review; I was still convinced the aircraft was not legal to be operated. I called Maintenance again and spoke to a new Technician (Person B). Again; I explained my concern about the aircraft's legality. After discussion; Person B agreed with me. Person B told me they would be taking the aircraft out of service and contacting Contract Maintenance. They also said that the original Technician (Person A) I had spoken with was currently in a discussion with Supervisors regarding the aircraft. Person B said once they had an ETA from Contract Maintenance and reviewed what would need to be done they would call me back. After approximately 10 minutes; Person B called me back. They stated that the Maintenance supervisor was going to have Contract Maintenance bring us a copy of the Maintenance tasking order; in which; there is a note stating the aircraft is allowed to operate one leg back to a Maintenance station so as to not interfere with revenue. The Supervisor wanted us to operate the aircraft; per that note; back to ZZZ1 where it would then be taken out of service. The Contract Maintenance Technician brought a copy of the tasking order to the cockpit. I read the note but believed it was not applicable. I informed Person B that I believed the note was not applicable because this was not the initial discovery of the discrepancy. I stated I believed the Maintenance Discrepancy was the controlling document that I was required to follow. Person B informed me that the Supervisor was in the process of calling a Chief Pilot. I hung up with Maintenance Control and called the ZZZ3 Captain (Person C). I explained the situation and my concern. After discussion; ultimately Person C suggested contacting my Dispatcher for input. I contacted my Dispatcher and voiced my concern. The Dispatcher stated the Maintenance Supervisor assured her the one leg flight back to ZZZ1 was legal. I told Dispatch I disagreed and recommended they review all applicable documentation before deciding if they would sign off of the Dispatch release. Dispatch did not want to do that then tried to conference call with Maintenance Control but they didn't answer. I told Dispatch I didn't believe any discussion with Maintenance would change my mind. Dispatch got angry and told me they would no longer be a go between; between me and Maintenance. I told them that was fine and to show me officially refusing the aircraft. Dispatch said they would inform the Coordinator. That was the end of my interaction with anyone in ZZZ2.