Here is the opinion in State v. Fluewelling.

An excerpt:

Defendant  relies  upon the phrase, “nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.”  He contends that a preference has been granted to another religion by Idaho Code § 37-2732A.  That statute exempts from the criminal sanctions in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act the transporting, delivery, or possession of peyote by“persons of native American descent who are members or eligible for membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe” when such peyote is “to be used as the sacrament in religious rites of a bona fide native American religious ceremony conducted by a bona fide religious organization.” Defendant argues that “[t]he government may not allow the use of peyote as  ‘the sacrament inreligious rites of a bona fide native American religious ceremony’ while at the same time punishing [Defendant] for his sacramental use of marijuana in the privacy of his home.”

Assuming that Idaho Code § 37-2732A grants a preference to certain native Americans in the practice of their religion, that would be a basis for invalidating that statute.  It is not a basis for invalidating Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(B) under which Defendant was convicted.  The statute under which he was convicted is of general application and it does not proscribe any conduct because it is engaged in for religious reasons or because of the religious belief it portrays.  It is entirely neutral with respect to religion.  It does not directly or indirectly give a preference to any religious denomination or mode of worship.  The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss.