DIFFERENCES LEADING TO DISCRIMINATION: A CASE STUDY OF SERVICE REFUSAL IN THE CONTEXT OF THAI LAW

Abstract

Differences in individual opinions, attitudes, and preferences often fuel discrimination, leading to the refusal of goods or services. This action creates a fundamental legal conflict: is it the legitimate right of a service provider to refuse an unsatisfactory customer, or an infringement of consumer rights through discrimination? The core dilemma lies in balancing the provider’s liberty to contract with the consumer’s right to equality. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017) enshrines national rights and liberties in Chapter 3. It affirms that individuals are free to act, provided their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others or compromise public order. Furthermore, the Constitution upholds fundamental rights based on human dignity and the principle of equality. However, when the exercise of liberties results in mutual conflict, the appropriateness and fairness of such conduct are questioned, especially without an explicit legal prohibition. The current legal framework, particularly the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), offers limited assistance. This Act primarily safeguards five basic consumer rights focusing mainly on commercial fairness, such as the right to information, free choice, and fair contractual terms. A crucial legal gap exists because the Act does not provide direct protection against discrimination in service provision based on personal characteristics. Consequently, the absence of specific anti-discrimination legislation presents a significant legal challenge in determining if the existing Consumer Protection Act is an appropriate or adequate tool to address service refusal based on discriminatory grounds.