A319 Captain noted Auto-thrust Inoperative MEL after reviewing the release prior to the flight. The Captain refused the aircraft due to safety concerns.

Narrative

I refused to accept the aircraft due to safety concerns. After reviewing the release prior to the flight; I noted MEL 22-XX. After reviewing the MEL; weather; airports; remaining duty day; current/future fitness for duty; experience/currency with conducting operations with manual thrust inputs; I decided it was unsafe to accept this aircraft. This inbound aircraft was delayed three hours arriving at ZZZ due to an auto-thrust issue being worked in ZZZ1 by Maintenance. We had already flown from ZZZ2 to ZZZ with three remaining segments. The aircraft was reassigned to us for our last three flights for the day. Per MEL; the alpha floor protection is lost without auto-thrust; and you must make manual inputs with the thrust levers i.e.; hand flying. Wind shear advisories/low level wind shear advisories were in the ATIS reports. There were reports of icing out of ZZZ and into ZZZ3 as well as gusting winds at each location. The ZZZZZ arrival and visual RNAV XX approaches were being conducted at ZZZ3 and are rather complex. As the day would progress; the increased workload of having to hand fly the aircraft with the thrust levers on the remaining three flights in these conditions would have an impact on our fatigue/fitness for duty. Lastly; with all these factors considered and combined with the fact that this (hand flying the thrust levers) is something that is not commonly conducted outside of an annual sim ride; I made the decision to refuse the aircraft due to safety concerns. I notified Dispatch 1+10 hours prior to scheduled departure. I was asked the reason; and I said due to MEL 22-XX. They said they would notify the equipment manager. After the aircraft arrived; I proceeded to the gate to put a Captain's refusal entry in the logbook. To my surprise; the plane was almost completely boarded with passengers. I queried the gate agents and they said no one notified them of the refusal. I went to the aircraft and briefed the Flight Attendants (FAs); input the entry into the logbook; and then notified Maintenance of the entry. They were not aware of the refusal either. I returned to the gate agent desk and proceeded to call Dispatch back to make sure they understood I was not accepting the aircraft. They said they were waiting for me to put it in the logbook and then had to run it through the equipment manager and Duty Pilot. They finally sent word to deplane the passengers. About a half hour later; the Duty Pilot called me to discuss my reasoning/decision process for refusing the plane. Gave a few top reasons and ended it with I determined it unsafe and then the conversation ended. We were eventually assigned another aircraft and proceeded to conduct the flights to ZZZ3 and ZZZ4.It should be noted that my only other aircraft refusal; a couple months ago; was handled completely differently; it was professional; and no questions asked. When I called Dispatch to notify them of the refusal; they said no problem and no need to explain. We will find another aircraft for you. This latest experience was completely different. Dispatch waiting for an official entry; passengers boarded in the interim when they knew over an hour ahead of time I refused the aircraft; and then a call from the Duty Pilot to query/question my decision. Based on the factors above; safety of flight drove my decision to refuse the aircraft. Airbus was designed as an automated aircraft to reduce workload and enhance safety of flight. In addition; there are a number of protections designed into the aircraft to enhance safety as well. Without the automatic function of the auto thrust levers one of these protections is lost (alpha floor protection). When an aircraft comes thru a major hub (ZZZ) with this type of issue; it should be fixed immediately. While I understand the MEL is a repair category (10 days); it doesn't necessarily mean that the aircraft is safe to fly based on certain/various conditions. These types of MELs (to include pack inop; APU inop; etc) shouldbe given a higher priority for repair.