Bunnies evoke constitutional freedoms?

Now, here’s one of those stories that just can’t be classified. It’s humorous and serious, trivial and profound.

In Boulder, Colo., an evicted tenant has taken her landlord to court.

She was evicted, she says, because she refused to take her Easter display off her apartment door.

Her suit claims that she received a notice saying that her decorataion of Easter stickers, plastic grass and Peeps candies had to come down, two weeks after the holiday.

She refused.

The landlord removed the display.

The tenant stopped paying rent in protest.

The landlord issued an eviction notice.

Carol Burdick’s suit says that she was told her display violated her lease, requiring that balconies, patios and other areas must be kept “in a clean sanitary condition.”

She says doesn’t want monetary damages, just a ruling that she’s not liable for missed rent and late fees.

So far, we have only Ms. Burdick’s side of the story in her filing with the court. But we can see how a display featuring marshmallow candies could be considered unclean and unsanitary. If the candies were not vacuumed-sealed, they could attract pests.

But here’s the especially interesting twist: She seems to be pursuing her suit on a First Amendment, freedom-of-religion basis.

“An Easter decoration is a religious statement and should be protected — even if it is just bunnies,” said her attorney, John Pineau.

Really?

Both sides of the religious holiday debate should take issue with that one.

Christians should be incensed that a sacred holiday dealing with such profound issues as death and resurrection has been so trivialized. Cute bunnies are equal to a belief in the salvation of humankind? We don’t think so.

On the other side of the debate, those who believe in a strict separation of church and state should be incensed that this claim seeks to unite the two.

The two sides have reached some sort of compromise, uneasy as it sometimes might be, in the display of holiday symbols in the public square through two stratagems: A public display has to be prepared to accommodate all viewpoints (Christmas/Hanukkah/Ramadan/Kwan-zaa/solstice, ad infinitum), or it has to be secular in nature only.

Although this dispute involves a private space, the argument could be extrapolated to apply to a public space — with what results, we do not know.

We grudgingly admire Ms. Burdick’s creativity — or that of her lawyer — in trying to win her case.

But, please, do not confuse candy bunnies with religion.