In cases concerning religious rituals two elements seem important: on the one hand freedom of choice (in the future) and, on the other hand, the danger of social isolation. With regard to the latter, if a child is not subject to the religious ritual (circumcision or baptism) this may result in the child being excluded by the religious group to which he or she belongs. While this argument was given due weight in the baptism case, it is of less importance in the circumcision cases. This can be explained by the fact that the other element, the freedom of choice with regard to physical appearance, is considerably different in the two
types of cases. A child who is circumcised has a limited choice in the future, since it is an irreparable physical operation without medical necessity, whereas a child who is baptised will not have this physical limitation. For this reason, the courts were less likely to intervene and decide in favour of circumcision than they were to decide in favour of baptism.
https://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/350/galley/342/download/